[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 53818]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21255]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2013-36]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of FAA's regulations. The purpose of this
notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in,
this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this
notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is
intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before September 19, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2013-
0471 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keira Jones<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR
11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 27, 2013.
Ida M. Klepper,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
PETITION FOR EXEMPTION
Docket No.: FAA-2013-0471
Petitioner: AAR Airlift
Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 91.9(a)

    Description of Relief Sought:
    AAR Airlift requests relief to operate its Sikorsky S-92A twin
engine helicopters, certified under 14 CFR part 29 transport category
rules, with limited exposure to engine failure during takeoff and
landing while carrying up to 19 passengers. Such operations would be
conducted between land-based facilities surrounded by substantial
barriers 15 feet tall and within 200 feet of the takeoff and landing
area, at density altitudes as high as 5,000 feet mean sea level, in
austere environments, during day and night, and under visual flight
rules and instrument flight rules.

[FR Doc. 2013-21255 Filed 8-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Point...........................................           4,937           3,131           3,243  ..............
Area............................................           5,498           5,436           5,616  ..............
Nonroad.........................................           2,497           1,725           1,410  ..............
On-road.........................................           3,677           1,874           1,218  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          16,610          12,227          11,487          -5,123
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 8B--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 NOX Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the NNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net change
                     Sector                            2007            2017            2025          2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          15,828          13,512           4,126  ..............
Area............................................          16,122          15,969           3,429  ..............
Nonroad.........................................          39,457          27,050           4,998  ..............
On-road.........................................          93,385          45,687          13,504  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................         164,793         102,218          26,057        -138,736
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 8C--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 SO2 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the NNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       SO2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net change
                     Sector                            2007            2017            2025          2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          20,360           3,583           1,245  ..............
Area............................................           4,983             452             102  ..............
Nonroad.........................................           5,761             719             105  ..............
On-road.........................................             586             531             129  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          31,690           5,295           1,579         -30,111
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 9A--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 PM2.5 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the SNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      PM2.5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net change
                     Sector                            2007            2017            2025          2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................             800             818             858  ..............
Area............................................           2,837           2,243           2,651  ..............
Nonroad.........................................             560             372             315  ..............
On-road.........................................           1,055             616             278  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           5,159           4,549           4,102          -1,057
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 9B--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 NOx Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the SNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       NOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net change
                     Sector                            2007            2017            2025          2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................           4,453           4,126           4,433  ..............
Area............................................           3,483           3,429           3,427  ..............

Nonroad.........................................           6,790           4,998           3,915  ..............
On-road.........................................          26,992          13,504           6,095  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          41,718          26,057          17,870         -23,848
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 9C--Comparison of 2007, 2017 and 2025 SO2 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the SNJ Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       SO2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Net change
                     Sector                            2007            2017            2025          2008-2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................           2,034           1,245           1,355  ..............
Area............................................           1,128             102             260  ..............
Nonroad.........................................           1,642             105             141  ..............
On-road.........................................             161             129             161  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           4,965           1,579           1,880          -3,085
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The permanent and enforceable control measures that are relied on
to provide continued attainment or maintenance of the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are listed as maintenance plan
measures in tables 5 (A thru B) and 6 (A thru B). New Jersey has
already implemented, or adopted these control measures, some with
future implementation dates. Additional information regarding the
control measures can be found in the TSD. EPA is proposing to approve
the 2017 interim and 2025 projection inventories for PM2.5,
NOX and SO2 for the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas. In all cases the 2017 and 2025 projection year
inventories were performed in accordance with EPA guidance. For further
information concerning EPA's evaluation and analysis of the emission
inventories, see the TSD available in the docket.
    Tables 8A-9C above show the inventories for the 2007 attainment
year, the 2017 interim year, and the 2025 endpoint year for the NNJ and
SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Table 8A-9C show that between
2007 and 2017, the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
are projected to reduce SO2, NOX and
PM2.5 emissions substantially. Between 2007 and 2025, the
NNJ and SNJ areas are projected to reduce emissions well below the 2007
attainment inventory emission levels for all three pollutants. Thus,
the projected emissions inventories show that the NNJ and SNJ areas
will continue to maintain the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS during the 10 year maintenance period.
Maintenance Demonstration Thru 2025
    As noted in section VI.E.1, CAA section 175A requires a state
seeking redesignation to attainment to submit a SIP revision to provide
for the maintenance of the NAAQS in the area ``for at least 10 years
after the redesignation.'' EPA has interpreted this as a showing of
maintenance ``for a period of 10 years following redesignation.'' See
Calcagni Memorandum. Where the emissions inventory method of showing
maintenance is used, its purpose is to show that emissions during the
maintenance period will not increase over the attainment year
inventory. See Calcagni Memorandum.
    As discussed in detail above, the State's maintenance plan
submission expressly documents that the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas' emissions inventories will remain below the
attainment year inventories through at least 2025. In addition, for the
reasons set forth below, EPA proposes to determine that the State's
submission further demonstrates that the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5
nonattainment areas will continue to maintain the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at least through 2025:
     As explained in the previous section, levels of
SO2, NOX, and PM2.5 are projected to
decrease substantially between 2007 and 2025. EPA believes that it is
highly improbable that sudden increases would occur that could exceed
the attainment year inventory levels in 2025.
     Air quality concentrations for PM2.5 are 1 to 2
[mu]g/m\3\ or more under the NAAQS level, indicating a margin of safety
in the event of any emissions increase. As shown in tables 1 and 2, for
the 1997 annual NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\, the design value for 2009-2011
for the NY-NJ-CT PM2.5 nonattainment area value was 11.7
[mu]g/m\3\; and the design value for 2009-2011 for the PA-NJ-DE
PM2.5 nonattainment area was measured at 13.7 [mu]g/m\3\. As
shown in tables 3 and 4, for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS of 35
[mu]g/m\3\, the design value for 2009-2011 for the NY-NJ-CT
PM2.5 nonattainment area was 30 [mu]g/m\3\; and the design
value for 2009-2011 for the PA-NJ-DE PM2.5 nonattainment
area was measured at 33 [mu]g/m\3\.
     Air quality concentrations showed a significant downward
trend over time for both the NY-NJ-CT and PA-NJ-DE PM2.5
nonattainment areas for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
See figures 3 thru 6 of the New Jersey redesignation request, which is
available in the docket.
     Additional emissions reductions will occur now, and in the
future, from EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) \16\, New
Jersey's Diesel Retrofit Program, NJDEP's amended Administrative
Consent Order with B.L. England, and from New Jersey's Clean
Construction Program. See the TSD for more information regarding these
measures, including expected emission reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 77 FR 9304 (February 16, 2012).

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

(c) Maintenance Plan and Evaluation of Precursors
    With regard to the redesignation of NNJ and SNJ areas, in
evaluating the effect of the D.C. Circuit's remand of EPA's
implementation rule, which included presumptions against consideration
of VOC and NH3 as PM2.5 precursors, in this
proposal EPA is also considering the impact of the decision on the
maintenance plan required under sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E)(iv). To
begin with, EPA notes that the area has attained the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards and that the state, as shown below, has
shown that attainment of that standard is due to permanent and
enforceable emission reductions.
    EPA proposes to determine that the State's maintenance plan shows
continued maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by tracking the levels of the precursors whose
control brought about attainment of the standards in the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas. EPA therefore determines that the additional
consideration related to the maintenance plan requirements that results
from the Court's January 4, 2013 decision is that of assessing the
potential role of VOC and NH3 in demonstrating continued
maintenance in this area. As explained below, based upon documentation
provided by the State and supporting information, EPA believes that the
maintenance plan for the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas need not
include any additional emission reductions of VOC or NH3 in
order to provide for continued maintenance of the standard.
    First, as noted above in EPA's discussion of section 189(e), VOC
emission levels in this area have historically been well-controlled
under SIP requirements related to ozone and other pollutants. Second,
total NH3 emissions for the NNJ and SNJ area are very low,
estimated to be less than 6,000 and 1,600 tons per year, respectively.
See Tables 7A and 7B. This amount of NH3 emissions appears
especially small in comparison to the total amounts of SO2,
NOX, and even PM2.5 emissions from sources in the
areas. Third, as described below, available information shows that no
precursor, including VOC and NH3, is expected to increase
over the maintenance period so as to interfere with or undermine the
State's maintenance demonstration.
    NNJ and SNJ areas' maintenance plans show that emissions of direct
PM2.5, SO2, and NOX are projected to
decrease substantially over the maintenance period. See Tables 8A-9C.
In addition, emissions inventories used in the RIA for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS show that VOC and NH3 emissions for
the NNJ and SNJ areas are projected to decrease substantially from 2007
through 2020. See Tables 10A and 10B below. While the RIA emissions
inventories are only projected out to 2020, there is no reason to
believe that this downward trend would not continue through 2025. Given
that the NNJ and SNJ areas are already attaining the 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with the current level
of emissions from sources in the area, the downward trend of emissions
inventories would be consistent with continued attainment. Indeed,
projected emissions reductions for the precursors that the State is
addressing for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS indicate that the areas should continue to
attain the NAAQS following the precursor control strategy that the
state has already elected to pursue. Even if VOC and NH3
emissions were to increase unexpectedly between 2020 and 2025, the
overall emissions reductions projected in direct PM2.5,
SO2, and NOX would be sufficient to offset any
increases. For these reasons, EPA proposes to determine that local
emissions of all of the potential PM2.5 precursors will not
increase to the extent that they will cause monitored PM2.5
levels to violate the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5
standards during the maintenance period.

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

    \17\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions
inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
    \18\ These emissions estimates were taken from the emissions
inventories developed for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.

                     Table 10A--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and NH3 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the NNJ Area \17\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                             NH3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Sector                                                             Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2007            2020          2007-2020         2007            2020          2007-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................           7,150           7,508  ..............             852           1,301  ..............
Area....................................................          59,925          60,657  ..............           2,810           2,872  ..............
Nonroad.................................................          29,203          16,613  ..............              28              34  ..............
On-road.................................................          44,389          15,285  ..............           2,433           1,243  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................         140,667         100,063         -40,604           6,123           5,450            -703
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Table 10B--Comparison of 2007 and 2020 VOC and NH3 Emission Totals by Source Sector (tpy) for the SNJ Area \18\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC                                             NH3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Sector                                                             Net change                                      Net change
                                                               2007            2020          2007-2020         2007            2020          2007-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...................................................           1,874           1,837  ..............             123             159  ..............
Area....................................................          18,140          18,488  ..............           1,075           1,103  ..............
Nonroad.................................................           7,023           3,890  ..............              10              12  ..............
On-road.................................................           9,072           3,295  ..............             469             263  ..............
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................          36,109          27,150          -8,959           1,677           1,527            -150
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, available air quality modeling analyses show continued
maintenance of the standard during the maintenance period. The modeling
analysis conducted for the RIA for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
indicates that the design value for this area is expected to continue
to decline through 2020. In the RIA analysis, the 2020 modeled design
value is 10.8 [mu]g/m\3\ for the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, and 9.4
[mu]g/m\3\ for the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment area. Given that precursor
emissions are projected to decrease through 2025, it is reasonable to
conclude that monitored PM2.5 levels in this area will also
continue to decrease through 2025.
    Thus, EPA proposes to determine that there is ample justification
to conclude that the NNJ and SNJ areas should be redesignated, even
taking into consideration the emissions of other precursors potentially
relevant to PM2.5. After consideration of the D.C. Circuit's
January 4, 2013 decision, and for the reasons set forth in this notice,
EPA proposes to approve the State's maintenance plan and its request to
redesignate the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas to attainment for the
1997 PM2.5 annual and the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour
standards.
(d) Monitoring Network
    New Jersey has committed to tracking the air quality for continued
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS, and will work with EPA prior
to making any changes to the existing PM2.5 air monitoring
network.
    The State is obligated to work with EPA each year through the air
monitoring network review process, as required by 40 CFR Part 58 to
determine: (1) The adequacy of the PM2.5 monitoring network;
(2) if additional monitoring is needed; and (3) if/when sites can be
discontinued or relocated. Any changes to the monitoring network,
including replacing or moving monitor(s) to new locations, as
necessary, will be made through the air monitoring network review
process. This review process undergoes a public comment period, and is
subject to approval by the EPA. Air monitoring data will continue to be
quality assured according to requirements in 40 CFR Part 58.
    EPA proposes to conclude that the State of New Jersey has met the
requirement for continuing to operate an appropriate air monitoring
network.
(e) Verification of Continued Attainment
    Continued attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the state
depends, in part, on the state's efforts towards tracking indicators of
continued attainment during the maintenance period. New Jersey's plan
for verifying continued attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS
consists of continued ambient PM2.5 air quality monitoring
in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 58. New Jersey will
also continue to develop and submit periodic emission inventories as
required by the Federal Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (codified
at 40 CFR Part 51, subpart A).
    EPA proposes to approve New Jersey's plans for verifying continued
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
(f) Contingency Measures in the Maintenance Plan
    Section 175A of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
such contingency provision as EPA deems necessary to ensure that the
state will promptly correct a violation of the NAAQS that occurs after
redesignation. The maintenance plan should identify the contingency
measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and
implementation of the contingency measures, and a time limit for action
by the state. The state should also identify specific indicators to be
used to determine when the contingency measures need to be adopted and
implemented. The maintenance plan must include a requirement that the
state will implement all measures with respect to control of the
pollutant(s) that were contained in the SIP before redesignation of the
area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of the CAA.
    As required by section 175A of the CAA, New Jersey has included
contingency provisions in the maintenance plan to address possible
future annual PM2.5 air quality problems. New Jersey will
use the following triggers to determine the cause of elevated levels,
and implement contingency measures, as necessary, in accordance with
the described schedule:
    1. If monitored PM2.5 concentrations in any year exceed
the level of the NAAQS, NJDEP will perform a data assessment to
determine the cause of the violation. This assessment will be performed
when the annual average PM2.5 concentration for the previous
year exceeds 15 [mu]g/m\3\ at any New Jersey monitoring site, or when
the 98th percentile of the 24-hour average daily concentrations exceeds
35 [mu]g/m\3\ at any New Jersey air monitoring site. NJDEP will perform
this evaluation within six months of the data certification. New Jersey
will work with the other states in its shared multi-state nonattainment
areas as necessary.
    2. If annual or 24-hour PM2.5 design values exceed 15
[mu]g/m\3\ or 35 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively, NJDEP will evaluate all
appropriate data to determine the cause using the same analyses
discussed in Item number 1. NJDEP will perform this evaluation within
six months of the determination of a violation.
    3. Based on any findings, New Jersey will make a judgment on
whether the violation was caused by an exceptional event or a violation
of an existing rule or permit. The State will rely on one or more of
the following contingency measures for any other violation:

--Onroad Vehicle Fleet Turnover
--Nonroad Vehicle and Equipment Fleet Turnover
--Low Sulfur Fuel Rule N.J.A.C. 7:27-9 (prior to July 2016)
--Diesel Retrofit Program, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program,
N.J.A.C. 7:27-14 and 32

    4. If necessary, New Jersey will evaluate the feasibility and
applicability of additional measures, how they relate to the cause and
location of the violation, and if these additional measures would
correct the violation. These may include:

--New control measures that have been adopted for other purposes

--Residential wood burning strategies
--Fugitive dust reductions at stationary sources
--Lower particulate limits for No. 6 fuel oil-fired boilers
--Lower particulate limits for stationary diesel engines
--Working with the local metropolitan planning agencies to implement
transportation control measures

    NJDEP will perform this evaluation within six months of the
determination of a violation. If it is determined that a new rule is
required or appropriate to correct a violation of the NAAQS, NJDEP will
propose a new rule within 18 month, and take final action within 30
months, of the determination of a violation.
    New Jersey is relying on existing measures, which are already
implemented, or have been adopted with future implementation dates, to
promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS. The state has also
included a commitment to further evaluate additional measures, if
necessary and appropriate. EPA proposes to find that the New Jersey
maintenance plan includes appropriate contingency measures to promptly
correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation.
Maintenance Plan Conclusion
    For all of the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve
New Jersey's 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 maintenance
plan for the NNJ and

SNJ areas as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

VII. What is EPA's analysis of New Jersey's proposed NOX and
PM2.5 motor vehicle emission budgets?

    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, new transportation plans,
programs, and projects, such as the construction of new highways, must
``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the part of the state's air
quality plan that addresses pollution from cars and trucks. Conformity
to the SIP means that transportation activities will not cause new air
quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely
attainment of the NAAQS or any interim milestones. If a transportation
plan does not conform, most new projects that would expand the capacity
of roadways cannot go forward. Regulations at 40 CFR Part 93 set forth
EPA policy, criteria, and procedures for demonstrating and assuring
conformity of such transportation activities to a SIP. The regional
emissions analysis is one, but not the only, requirement for
implementing transportation conformity. Transportation conformity is a
requirement for nonattainment and maintenance areas.
    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIPs and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas.
These control strategy SIPs (including RFP and attainment
demonstrations) and maintenance plans create motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs or budgets) for criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors to address pollution from cars and trucks. Per 40 CFR Part
93, an MVEB must be established for the last year of the maintenance
plan. A state may adopt MVEBs for other years as well. The MVEB is the
portion of the total allowable emissions in the maintenance
demonstration that is allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and
emissions. The MVEB serves as a ceiling on emissions from an area's
planned transportation system. The MVEB concept is further explained in
the preamble to the November 24, 1993, Transportation Conformity Rule
(58 FR 62188). The preamble also describes how to establish the MVEB in
the SIP and how to revise the MVEB.
    New Jersey has developed MVEBs for both the NNJ and SNJ
nonattainment areas. The budgets are being established for both the
1997 annual and 2006 daily PM2.5 standards. New Jersey
determined that budgets based on annual emissions of direct
PM2.5 and NOX, a precursor, are appropriate for
the 2006 daily standard because exceedences of the standard were not
isolated to one particular season; therefore, the budgets established
by this maintenance plan will be used by transportation agencies to
meet conformity requirements for both the annual and daily standards.
    New Jersey developed these MVEBs, as required, for the last year of
its maintenance plan, 2025, and an additional year, 2009, for the
purpose of establishing budgets for the near-term based on EPA's MOVES
model. Previously established and approved MVEBs had been based on
MOBILE6.2.
    The 2009 MVEB was developed without an accompanying full emissions
inventory. EPA proposes to approve this approach that is consistent
with attainment and maintenance of both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards because of our earlier determinations that
both the NY-NJ-CT and the PA-NJ-DE nonattainment areas had attained the
standards based on monitored air quality that included the year 2009
(see section II.A.).
    The MVEBs for 2025 reflect the total on-road emissions for 2025,
plus an allocation from the available NOX and
PM2.5 safety margins. Under 40 CFR 93.101, the term ``safety
margin'' is the difference between the attainment level (from all
sources) and the projected level of emissions (from all sources) in the
maintenance plan. The safety margin can be allocated to the
transportation sector; however, the total emissions must remain below
the attainment level. New Jersey chose to add 8% of the available
safety margin to both the PM2.5 and NOX budgets
for 2025 for both the NNJ and SNJ nonattainment areas. The
NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs and safety margin allocations
were developed in consultation with the transportation partners and
were added to accommodate expected future improvements to MOVES model
inputs and methodologies.
    In the submittal, the State has also established ``sub-area
budgets'' for the two metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) within
the NNJ nonattainment area: the North Jersey Transportation Planning
Authority (NJTPA) and the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
(DVRPC). These sub-area budgets allow each MPO to work independently to
demonstrate conformity by meeting its own PM2.5 and
NOX budgets. Each MPO must still verify, however, that the
other MPO currently has a conforming long range transportation plan and
transportation improvement program (TIP) prior to making a new plan/TIP
conformity determination. The MVEBs for both the NNJ and SNJ areas are
defined in Tables 11 (A thru D) below.

  Table 11A--2009 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and NOX MVEBs for NNJ for Both the
           1997 Annual and 2006 Daily PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS
                               [Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Direct
                    MPO/Subarea                       PM2.5       NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJTPA.............................................      2,736     67,272
DVRPC (Mercer County).............................        224      5,835
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 11B--2025 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and NOX MVEBs for NNJ for Both the
           1997 Annual and 2006 Daily PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS
                               [Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Direct
                MPO/Subarea                 PM[ihel2].[ihel5]     NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJTPA.....................................          1,509         25,437
DVRPC (Mercer County).....................            119          2,551
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 11C--2009 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and NOX MVEBs for SNJ for Both the
           1997 Annual and 2006 Daily PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS
                               [Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Direct
                    MPO                     PM[ihel2].[ihel5]     NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester             680         18,254
 Counties)................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 11D--2025 PM[ihel2].[ihel5] and NOX MVEBs for SNJ for Both the
           1997 Annual and 2006 Daily PM[ihel2].[ihel5] NAAQS
                               [Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Direct
                    MPO                     PM[ihel2].[ihel5]     NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester             363          8,003
 Counties)................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, New Jersey has chosen to allocate a portion of
the available safety margin to the NOX and PM2.5
MVEBs for 2025. Details of this allocation are shown in Tables 12 (A
thru D) below.

                    Table 12A--Direct PM[ihel2].[ihel5] MVEB Safety Margin Allocation for NNJ
                                                   [Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                                reduction    Safety
                                                                      On-Road    from all  margin (8%
                            MPO/Subarea                              inventory   sources,   of total   2025 MVEB
                                                                      for 2025   2007 to   reduction)
                                                                                2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJTPA..............................................................      1,128      4,766         381      1,509
DVRPC (Mercer County)..............................................         90        358          29        119
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table 12B--NOX MVEB Safety Margin Allocation for NNJ
                                                   [Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                                reduction    Safety
                                                                      On-Road    from all  margin (8%
                            MPO/Subarea                              inventory   sources,   of total   2025 MVEB
                                                                      for 2025   2007 to   reduction)
                                                                                2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJTPA..............................................................     18,626     85,142       6,811     25,437
DVRPC (Mercer County)..............................................      1,920      7,881         630      2,551
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    Table 12C--Direct PM[ihel2].[ihel5] MVEB Safety Margin Allocation for SNJ
                                                   [Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                                reduction    Safety
                                                                      On-Road    from all  margin (8%
                            MPO/Subarea                              inventory   sources,   of total   2025 MVEB
                                                                      for 2025   2007 to   reduction)
                                                                                2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties)................        278      1,056          85        363
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              Table 12D--NOX MVEB Safety Margin Allocation for SNJ
                                                   [Tons/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                                                reduction    Safety
                                                                      On-Road    from all  margin (8%
                            MPO/Subarea                              inventory   sources,   of total   2025 MVEB
                                                                      for 2025   2007 to   reduction)
                                                                                2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVRPC (Burlington, Camden, and Gloucester Counties)................      6,095     23,848       1,908      8,003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve the 2009 and 2025 MVEBs for
NOX and PM2.5 for NNJ and SNJ because EPA has
determined that the areas will maintain both the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS with on-road vehicle emissions capped at
the levels set by the budgets. EPA's review thus far indicates that the
budgets meet the adequacy criteria set forth by 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), as
follows:
    (i) The submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or
maintenance plan was endorsed by the Governor (or his or her designee)
and was subject to a State public hearing: The SIP revision was
submitted to EPA by the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, who is the Governor's designee.
    (ii) Before the control strategy implementation plan or maintenance
plan was submitted to EPA, consultation among Federal, State, and local
agencies occurred; full implementation plan documentation was provided
to EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, if any, were addressed: New Jersey
conducted an interagency consultation process involving EPA and USDOT,
the New Jersey Department of Transportation and affected MPOs. All
comments and concerns were addressed prior to the final submittal.
    (iii) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is clearly identified
and precisely quantified: The MVEB was clearly identified and
quantified and is reiterated here in Tables 11A-11D.
    (iv) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered
together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with
applicable requirements for maintenance: Both the 2009 and 2025 MVEB
are less than the on-road mobile source inventory for 2007 that was
shown to be consistent with attainment and maintenance of the
standards. In addition, the 2009 budgets are for a year in which EPA
has determined that New Jersey attained the applicable air quality
standards and are therefore consistent with maintenance of the
respective standards.
    (v) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is consistent with and
clearly related to the emissions inventory and

the control measures in the submitted control strategy implementation
plan revision or maintenance plan: The MVEB were developed from the on-
road mobile source inventories, including all applicable state and
Federal control measures. Inputs related to inspection and maintenance
and fuels are consistent with New Jersey's Federally-approved control
programs.
    (vi) Revisions to previously submitted control strategy
implementation plans or maintenance plans explain and document any
changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts
on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety
margins (see Sec.  93.101 for definition); and reasons for the changes
(including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or
estimates of vehicle miles traveled): The submitted maintenance plan
establishes new 2009 and 2025 budgets to ensure continued maintenance
of the standards; therefore, this in not applicable.
    Once the budgets are approved or found adequate (whichever is
completed first), they must be used for future conformity
determinations.

VIII. What is the status of EPA's adequacy determination for the
proposed NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for 2009 and 2025
for Northern and Southern New Jersey?

    When reviewing submitted ``control strategy'' SIPs or maintenance
plans containing MVEBs, EPA may affirmatively find the MVEB contained
therein adequate for use in determining transportation conformity. Once
EPA affirmatively finds the submitted MVEB is adequate for
transportation conformity purposes, that MVEB must be used by state and
Federal agencies in determining whether proposed transportation
projects conform to the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
    EPA's substantive criteria for determining adequacy of a MVEB are
set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), and our review of New Jersey's
submission in the context of these criteria was presented in section
VII. The process for determining adequacy consists of three basic
steps: Public notification of a SIP submission, a public comment
period, and EPA's adequacy determination. This process for determining
the adequacy of submitted MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes
was initially outlined in EPA's May 14, 1999, guidance, ``Conformity
Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999, Conformity Court
Decision.'' EPA adopted regulations to codify the adequacy process in
the Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments for the ``New 8-Hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Miscellaneous Revisions for Existing Areas; Transportation Conformity
Rule Amendments--Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule
Change,'' on July 1, 2004 (69 FR 40004). Additional information on the
adequacy process for transportation conformity purposes is available in
the proposed rule entitled, ``Transportation Conformity Rule
Amendments: Response to Court Decision and Additional Rule Changes,''
68 FR 38974, 38984 (June 30, 2003).
    As discussed earlier, New Jersey's maintenance plan submission
includes NOX and PM2.5 MVEBs for the NNJ and SNJ
maintenance areas for 2009 and 2025. EPA reviewed the NOX
and PM2.5 MVEBs through the adequacy process. The New Jersey
SIP submission, including the NOX and PM2.5
MVEBs, was open for public comment on EPA's adequacy Web site on
September 12, 2012, found at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm. The public comment period closed on October 12,
2012. EPA did not receive any comments on the adequacy of the MVEBs,
nor did EPA receive any requests for the SIP submittal.
    EPA intends to make its determination on the adequacy of the 2009
and 2025 MVEBs for NNJ and SNJ for transportation conformity purposes
in the near future by completing the adequacy process that was started
on September 12, 2012. After EPA finds the MVEBs adequate or approves
them, the new MVEBs for NOX and PM2.5 must be
used for future transportation conformity determinations.

IX. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's request for redesignating
the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to attainment, because the State has
demonstrated compliance with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E)
for redesignation. EPA has evaluated New Jersey's redesignation request
and determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. EPA believes that the monitoring data
demonstrate that the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas
has attained the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
and will continue to attain the standard. Final approval of this
redesignation request would change the designation of the NNJ and SNJ
PM2.5 nonattainment areas from nonattainment to attainment
for the 1997 PM2.5 annual and the 2006 PM2.5 24-
hour NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan for
the NNJ and SNJ PM2.5 nonattainment areas as a revision to
the New Jersey SIP. EPA is also proposing to approve the 2007
NH3, VOC, NOX, direct PM2.5 and
SO2 emissions inventories as meeting the comprehensive
emissions inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 2009 and 2025 motor
vehicle emissions budgets for PM2.5 and NOX. EPA
is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National

Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with
the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects

 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

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

    Dated: June 12, 2013.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2013-15147 Filed 6-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31663]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1097; FRL-8572-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans
Minnesota; Maintenance Plan Update for Dakota County Lead Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing an update to the lead maintenance plan for
Dakota County, Minnesota. This plan update demonstrates that Dakota
County will maintain attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard for lead through 2014. Minnesota has verified that the
emission limits adopted to demonstrate modeled attainment continue to
be met, that there are no new significant sources of lead or increases
in background emissions, and that the state has in place a
comprehensive program to identify sources of violations and address any
violation through enforcement and implementation of a contingency plan.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-1097, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Doug Aburano, Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in
the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: May 12, 2008.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
 [FR Doc. E8-12242 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33181-33183]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14201]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0429; FRL-9316-8]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from brandy and wine aging
operations. We are approving a local rule that regulates

these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA
or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow
with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0429, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4125<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD...........................            4695  Brandy Aging and Wine Aging        09/17/09        05/17/10
                                                      Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 2010, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD
Rule 4695 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 4695 in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 4695 limits VOC
emissions from large brandy aging and wine aging operations. EPA's
technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVUAPCD regulates an
extreme ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4695
must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration
for Ozone State Implementation Plans (SIP)'' SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. Rule 4695
Section 5.5 requires all brandy aging operations be conducted in a
warehouse that is initially certified and maintained as a Permanent
Total Enclosure (PTE) using the requirements of EPA Method 204. The TSD
has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies Rule 4695 but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 19, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-14201 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6305-6306]
[DOCID:fr09fe07-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55219; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Extend the Duration of CBOE Rule 6.45A(b) Pertaining to
Orders Represented in Open Outcry

February 1, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 29, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') 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 substantially
prepared by the CBOE. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission.\5\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii). See discussion infra Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CBOE proposes to extend the duration of CBOE Rule 6.45A(b) (the
``Rule''), relating to the allocation of orders represented in open
outcry in equity option classes designated by the Exchange to be traded
on the CBOE Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid'') through April 30, 2007.
No other changes are being made to the Rule. The text of the proposed
rule change is available at CBOE, the Commission's Public Reference
Room, and (http://www.cboe.org/Legal).

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 CBOE 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
    In March 2005, the Commission approved revisions to CBOE Rule 6.45A
related to the introduction of Remote Market-Makers.\6\ Among other
things, the Rule, pertaining to the allocation of orders represented in
open outcry in equity options classes traded on Hybrid, was amended to
clarify that only in-crowd market participants would be eligible to
participate in open outcry trade allocations. In addition, the Rule was
amended to limit the duration of the Rule until September 14, 2005. The
duration of the Rule was thereafter extended through January 31,
2007.\7\ As the duration period expires on January 31, 2007, the
Exchange proposes to extend the effectiveness of the Rule through April
30, 2007.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51366 (March 14,
2005), 70 FR 13217 (March 18, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-75).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52423 (September
14, 2005), 70 FR 55194 (September 20, 2005) (extending the duration
of the Rule through December 14, 2005) and 52957 (December 15,
2005), 70 FR 76085 (December 22, 2005) (extending the Rule through
March 14, 2006), 53524 (March 21, 2006), 71 FR 15235 (March 27,
2006) (extending the duration of the Rule through July 14, 2006),
54164 (July 17, 2006), 71 FR 42143 (July 25, 2006) (extending the
duration of the Rule through October 31, 2006) and 54680 (November
1, 2006), 71 FR 65554 (November 8, 2006) (extending the duration of
the Rule through January 31, 2007).
    \8\ In order to effect proprietary transactions on the floor of
the Exchange, in addition to complying with the requirements of the
Rule, members are also required to comply with the requirements of
Section 11(a)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1), or qualify for an
exemption. Section 11(a)(1) restricts securities transactions of a
member of any national securities exchange effected on that exchange
for (i) the member's own account, (ii) the account of a person
associated with the member, or (iii) an account over which the
member or a person associated with the member exercises discretion,
unless a specific exemption is available. The Exchange has issued
regulatory circulars to members informing them of the applicability
of these Section 11(a)(1) requirements each time the duration of the
Rule was extended. See CBOE Regulatory Circulars RG05-103 (November
2, 2005), RG06-001 (January 3, 2006), RG06-34 (April 7, 2006), RG06-
79 (July 31, 2006) and RG06-115 (November 8, 2006). The Exchange
represents that it expects to issue a similar regulatory circular to
members reminding them of the applicability of the Section 11(a)(1)
requirements with respect to the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Extension of the duration of the rule will allow the Exchange to
continue to operate under the existing allocation parameters for orders
represented in open outcry in Hybrid on an uninterrupted basis.
Accordingly, CBOE believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (1)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) impose any significant burden on competition; and (3)
become operative for thirty 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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) \12\ thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange has given
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date on which
the Exchange filed the proposed rule change. See 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Commission Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\
normally does not become operative prior to thirty days after the date
of filing. The CBOE requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), and designate
the proposed rule change to become operative immediately to allow the
Exchange to continue to operate under the existing allocation
parameters for orders represented in open outcry in Hybrid on an
uninterrupted basis. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because such waiver will allow the CBOE to continue to
operate under the Rule without interruption. For these reasons, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change as effective and
operative upon filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ For the purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2007-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2007-10. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2007-10 and should be submitted on or before March
2, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-2139 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 16432]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05416]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-138-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for The Proposed Northern Lights 2023
Expansion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Northern Lights 2023 Expansion Project (Project), proposed by
Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in the above-referenced docket.
Northern requests authorization to abandon, construct, and operate
certain interstate natural gas facilities in Freeborn, Washington,
Scott, Sherburne, and Stearns Counties, Minnesota and Monroe County,
Wisconsin. The proposed Project would allow Northern to provide up to
44,222 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas in incremental winter
peak day firm transportation service to its existing residential,
commercial, and industrial customer market and 6,667 Dth/d of
additional firm service that would allow enhanced reliability and
flexibility in providing natural gas transportation capacity for
electric generation.
    The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with the
mitigation measures recommended in the final EIS, would result in
limited adverse environmental impacts. Most adverse environmental
impacts would be temporary or short-term during construction, but some
long-term and permanent environmental impacts would occur on some
forested lands. With the exception of climate change impacts that are
not characterized in this final EIS as significant or insignificant,
staff concludes that impacts would be reduced to less than significant
levels through implementation of Northern's proposed avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures, as well as staff's Project-
specific recommendations.
    The Project would involve six new pipeline segments (four pipeline
extensions and two pipeline loops \1\), totaling 9.8 miles of pipe. The
pipelines would range in size from 4 to 36 inches-in-diameter. Northern
also proposes construction of four new valve settings and modifications
at six existing aboveground facilities. Additionally, Northern proposes
to abandon and remove two existing valve settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Loop is parallel pipelines connected at both ends that
allows more gas to flow through that segment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
abandonment, construction and operation of the following Project
facilities:
     construction of a 2.79-mile extension of 36-inch-diameter
Ventura North E-line, Freeborn County, Minnesota;
     construction of a 1.07-mile, 30-inch-diameter loop of 20-
inch-diameter Elk River 1st and 2nd branch lines, Washington County,
Minnesota;
     construction of a 1.14-mile extension of 24-inch-diameter
Willmar D branch line, Scott County, Minnesota;
     construction of a 2.48-mile extension of 8-inch-diameter
Princeton tie over loop, Sherburne County, Minnesota;
     construction of a 2.01-mile loop of 3-inch-diameter
Paynesville branch line, Stearns County, Minnesota;
     construction of a 0.34-mile extension of 8-inch-diameter
Tomah branch line loop, Monroe County, Wisconsin;
     construction or modification of aboveground facilities
including; construction of one new pig launcher within an existing
facility, construction of four new valve settings, replacement of
valves and piping inside four existing facilities, and installation of
two rupture-mitigation valves, associated piping, and building.
Aboveground facilities would be in Freeborn, Washington, Scott,
Sherburne, and Stearns County, Minnesota; and Monroe County, Wisconsin;
and
     abandonment and removal of two valve settings and
associated piping in Scott and Freeborn County, Minnesota.
    The Commission mailed a copy of this Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; regional non-governmental organizations,
environmental and public interest groups; potentially interested Indian
tribes; affected landowners; and newspapers and libraries in the
project area. The final EIS is only available in electronic format. It
may be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on
the natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In
addition, the final EIS may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on
the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search), select ``General Search'', and
enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the
last three digits (i.e. CP22-138). Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ)
regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on a proposed action
may be made until 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency publishes a notice of availability of the final EIS in the
Federal Register. However, the CEQ regulations provide an exception to
this rule when an agency decision is subject to a formal internal
appeal process that allows other agencies or the public to make their
views known. In such cases, the agency decision may be made at the same
time the notice of the final EIS is published, allowing both periods to
run concurrently. The Commission decision for this proposed action is
subject to a 30-day rehearing period.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: March 10, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-05416 Filed 3-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P