[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 250 (Thursday, December 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 95974-95975]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[ Project Nos. 2362-039, 2454-080 and 2532-079]

Allete, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing,
Soliciting Comments, Protests and Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Extension of License Term.
    b. Project Nos.: P-2362-039, P-2454-080, & P-2532-079.
    c. Date Filed: November 21, 2016.
    d. Licensee: Allete, Inc.
    e. Names and Locations of Projects: Grand Rapids Project (P-2362),
located on the Mississippi River in Itasca County, Minnesota. Sylvan
Project (P-2454), located on the Gull and Crow Wing rivers, in Cass,
Crow Wing, and Morrison counties, Minnesota. Little Falls Project (P-
2532), located on the Mississippi River, in Morrison County, Minnesota.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    g. Licensee Contact Information: Ms. Nora Rosemore, Minnesota
Power, 30 West Superior Street, Duluth, Minnesota 55802, Phone: (218)
725-2101, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    h. FERC Contact: Mr. Ashish Desai,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests,
is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions
to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866)

208-3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket numbers P-2436-039, P-
2454-080, and P-2532-079.
    j. Description of Proceeding: The licensee, Allete, Inc., requests
the Commission extend the term of the license for three of its projects
to synchronize the license expiration dates with the licensee's two
other projects located nearby, so that they could be relicensed in two
groups based on their location. The licensee received a 30-year license
for the Grand Rapids Project No. 2362 on February 26, 1993, effective
February 1, 1993. The licensee requests the license expiration date for
the Grand Rapids Project be extended from January 31, 2023 to December
31, 2023, to match the license expiration date of the licensee's nearby
Prairie River Project No. 2361.
    In addition, the licensee received 30-year licenses for the Sylvan
Project No. 2454 on October 29, 1993, and Little Falls Project No. 2532
on October 27, 1993, both effective January 1, 1994. The licensee
requests the expiration dates for both projects be extended to March
31, 2038, to match the license expiration date of the licensee's nearby
Pillager Project No. 2663. The licensee states that the consolidation
of the relicensing proceedings for the five projects into two groups
would reduce redundancy and allow for better stakeholder participation.
    k. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
Docket number (P-2362-039, P-2454-080, and P-2532-079) excluding the
last three digits in the docket number field to access the notice. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-
free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call
(202) 502-8659.
    l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to the license term extension request. Agencies may obtain copies of
the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener
files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits
of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular
resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that
resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this
application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons
listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: December 22, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-31539 Filed 12-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 185 (Thursday, September 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57519-57521]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24101]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

Docket No. FAA-2015-3601; Airspace Docket No. 15-AGL-5
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of Jet Route J-513; North Central United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes jet route J-513 in the north central
United States. The FAA is taking this action to reflect and accommodate
route changes made in Canadian airspace as part of Canada's Windsor-
Toronto-Montreal (WTM) airspace redesign project.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, December 10, 2015. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA, Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the
north central United States to maintain the efficient flow of air
traffic.

Background

    In 1969, the FAA published in the Federal Register a rule that
established J-513 from the Lakehead, Ontario, Canada, VHF Omnidirection
Range Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid (NAVAID) to the
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, VHF Omnidirection Range/Distance Measuring
Equipment (VOR/DME) NAVAID (34 FR 12133, July 19, 1969). The route,
extending through a small portion of airspace over the north central
United States, was established in response to a request from the
Canadian Department of Transport advising they had an immediate
requirement for a high level airway to be designated from Lakehead to
Sudbury. When it was established, J-513 joined to Canadian high level
airway No. HL-513.
    In 1970, the FAA published in the Federal Register a rule to amend
J-513 (35 FR 3659, February 25, 1970). The amendment changed the name
of the Lakehead, Ontario, Canada, VORTAC to Thunder Bay. As a result,
the J-513 description was amended to reflect the route from the Thunder
Bay, Ontario, Canada, VORTAC to the Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, VOR/DME,
excluding the airspace within Canada.
    In November 2014, Canada removed the portions of J-513 in Canadian
airspace as part of their WTM airspace redesign program; however,
corresponding action for the portion of J-513 in United States airspace
was not accomplished by the FAA. This disconnect led to the charted
depiction of J-513 being removed from the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
high altitude enroute charts, but the legal description remained in FAA
Order 7400.9 and the National Airspace System Repository (NASR).
    Since the basis for which J-513 was originally established no
longer exists, the FAA is removing the route from 14 CFR part 71 and
FAA Order 7400.9. Subsequently, the FAA will remove the route from the
NASR database.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15,
2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists Class A, B,
C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) part 71 by removing jet route J-513. This action responds to the
route changes made in Canadian airspace as part of Canada's WTM
airspace redesign project. This action removes a route that was put in
place in accordance with a request from the Canadian Department of
Transport, which traversed through Canadian and U.S. airspace. Canada
has subsequently removed this route and the route no longer exists on
aeronautical charts. Therefore, notice and public procedure under 5
U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.
    Jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order 7400.9Z
dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The jet route listed in this
document will be subsequently removed in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action consists of modifying an airway
and it is not expected to cause any potentially significant
environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exists that
warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015 and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes

* * * * *

J-513 [Removed]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2015.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2015-24101 Filed 9-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 201 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 58262]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22962]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12758-007]

BOST5 Hydroelectric LLC; Notice of Effectiveness of Withdrawal of
Application for Amendment of License

    On February 9, 2021, BOST5 Hydroelectric LLC (BOST5) filed an
application to amend the license for the Red River Lock and Dam No. 5
Hydroelectric Project. On September 20, 2021, BOST5 filed a notice of
withdrawal of its application for amendment of license.
    No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed,
and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal.
Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ the withdrawal of the amendment application became
effective on October 6, 2021, and this proceeding is hereby terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2020).

    Dated: October 15, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-22962 Filed 10-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30062-30066]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13370]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0332; FRL-9995-31-Region 7]

Approval of Iowa and Nebraska Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard Interstate
Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from
Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality (NDEQ) for the 2012 Annual Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as
``infrastructure'' SIPs. In this action EPA is proposing to approve the
interstate transportation obligations of the State's 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP submittals.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2019-0332, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
IV. Background

V. Relevant Factors To Evaluate the 2012 PM2.5 Interstate
Transport SIPs
VI. States' Submissions and the EPA's Analysis
VII. What action is the EPA taking?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-
0332, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve the submittals as meeting the
submittal requirement of section 110(a)(1). The EPA is proposing to
approve certain elements of the infrastructure SIP submissions from
Iowa received on December 22, 2015, and from Nebraska received on
February 22, 2016. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the
following elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--significant
contribution to nonattainment (prong 1), and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS (prong 2). The EPA has already addressed
elements of 110(a)(2) including: (A) through (C), (D)(i)(II)--
prevention of significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3),
(D)(ii), and (E) through (H), and (J) through (M) in separate
rulemakings for Iowa and Nebraska (see docket EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0517 and
EPA-R07-OAR-2017-0477). The EPA intends to act on section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)--protection of visibility (prong 4) in subsequent
rulemakings. Finally, EPA is not acting on section 110(a)(2)(I) as it
does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to address element (I).

III. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state's submissions have met the public notice requirements for
SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The state of Iowa
held a 30-day comment period, and a public hearing on November 16,
2015. No oral or written comments were received. The state of Nebraska
held a public comment period from November 23, 2015, to December 29,
2015. The state received no comments during the public comment period.
A public hearing was held on December 29, 2015. The submissions
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

IV. Background

    On December 14, 2012, the EPA revised the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). An area meets the standard if the
three-year average of its annual average PM2.5 concentration
(at each monitoring site in the area) is less than or equal to 12.0
[mu]g/m\3\. States were required to submit infrastructure SIP
submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than
December 14, 2015.
    CAA section 110(a)(1) requires states to submit SIP revisions
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS in
order to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of the new or revised NAAQS. CAA section 110(a)(2) outlines the
applicable requirements of such SIP submissions, which EPA has
historically referred to as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Section
110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as
monitoring, basic program requirements (e.g., permitting), and legal
authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the
newly established or revised NAAQS. Thus, section 110(a)(1) provides
the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs, and
section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the
infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or
revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may
vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the
state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two subsections: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), require plans to prohibit any
source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state
(prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The EPA highlighted the statutory requirement to submit
infrastructure SIPs within three years of promulgation of a new
NAAQS in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (2007 guidance). EPA has issued additional guidance
documents and memoranda, including a September 13, 2013, guidance
document titled ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2)'' (2013 guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through this notice, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 1 and
prong 2 portions of the infrastructure SIP submissions by Iowa and
Nebraska as demonstrating that these states do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. For comprehensive
information on the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, please refer to the
Federal Register notice cited above.

V. Relevant Factors To Evalute the 2012 PM2.5 Intersate Transport SIPs

    The EPA has developed a consistent framework for addressing
interstate transport with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. This
framework includes the following four steps: (1) Identify downwind
areas that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the
NAAQS; (2) Identify which upwind states contribute to these air quality
problems in amounts sufficient to warrant further review and analysis;
(3) Identify any emissions reductions necessary to prevent an
identified upwind state from significantly contributing to downwind
nonattainment or interfering with downwind maintenance of the NAAQS;

and (4) Adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve
those emissions reductions.
    To help states identify the receptors expected to have problems
attaining or maintaining the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the
EPA released a memorandum titled, ``Information on the Interstate
Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' on March 17, 2016 (herein the ``2016
Memo'').\2\ The 2016 Memo provides projected future year annual
PM2.5 design values for monitors throughout the country
based on quality assured and certified ambient monitoring data and
recent air quality modeling and explains the methodology used to
develop these projected design values. The 2016 Memo also describes how
the projected values can be used to help determine which monitors
should be further evaluated as potential receptors under step 1 of the
interstate transport framework described above, and how to determine
whether emissions from other states significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at these monitoring sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/good-neighbor-memo_implementation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To develop the projected values presented in the 2016 Memo, the EPA
used the results of nationwide photochemical air quality modeling that
it recently performed to support several ozone NAAQS-related
rulemakings. Base year modeling was performed for 2011. Future year
modeling was performed for 2017 to support the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016). Future year modeling was performed for 2025 to
support the Regulatory Impact Assessment of the final 2015 Ozone
NAAQS.\3\ In addition, and relevant to this proposed action on
interstate transport SIPs for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
the outputs from these model runs included hourly concentrations of
PM2.5 that were used in conjunction with measured data to
project annual average PM2.5 design values for 2017 and
2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 2015 ozone NAAQS RIA at: http://www3.epa.gov/ozonepollution/pdfs/20151001ria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Areas that were designated as moderate PM2.5
nonattainment areas for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in 2014
must attain the NAAQS by December 31, 2021, or as expeditiously as
practicable. Since modeling results are only available for 2017 and
2025, the 2016 Memo explains that one way to assess potential receptors
for 2021 \4\ is to assume that receptors projected to have average and/
or maximum design values above the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025 are also
likely to be either nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021.
Similarly, the EPA stated that it may be reasonable to assume that
receptors that are projected to attain the NAAQS in both 2017 and 2025
are also likely to be attainment receptors in 2021. Where a potential
receptor is projected to be nonattainment or maintenance in 2017, but
projected to be attainment in 2025, further analysis of the emissions
and modeling may be needed to make a further judgement regarding the
receptor status in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Assessing downwind PM2.5 air quality problems
based on estimates of air quality concentrations in a future year
aligned with the relevant attainment deadline is consistent with the
instructions from the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in North Carolina v.
EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 911-12 (D.C. Cir. 2008), that upwind emission
reductions should be harmonized, to the extent possible, with the
attainment deadlines for downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this approach, the EPA identified 19 potential
nonattainment and/or maintenance receptors. All of the 17 potential
nonattainment receptors are located in California. One of the potential
maintenance-only receptors is located in Shoshone County, Idaho, and
the other potential maintenance-only receptor is located in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania.
    The 2016 memorandum also notes that because of data quality
problems, nonattainment and maintenance projections were not conducted
for monitors in all or portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of
Shoshone County), Tennessee and Kentucky. EPA notes, however, that data
quality problems have subsequently been resolved for all of the
aforementioned areas. These areas have current design values \5\ below
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and are expected to continue to
maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission trends for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) and therefore are
not considered potential receptors for the purpose of interstate
transport for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Current design values include the 2015-2017 available and
certified data that states submitted to EPA on May 1, 2018, through
the Air Quality System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After identifying potential receptors, the next step is to identify
whether upwind states contribute to air pollution at each of the
identified receptors in other states. In the 2016 Memo, the EPA did not
calculate the portion of any downwind state's predicted
PM2.5 concentrations that would result from emissions from
individual states. Accordingly, the EPA will evaluate prong 1 and 2
submissions for states using a weight of evidence analysis. This
analysis is based on a review of the state's submission and other
available information, including air quality trends; geographical and
meteorological information; local emissions in downwind states and
emissions from the upwind state; and contribution modeling from prior
interstate transport analyses. While none of these factors is by itself
fully conclusive, together they may be used in weight of evidence
analyses to determine whether the emissions from each of the states
that are the subject of this notice will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at the identified receptors in the 2016 Memo.

VI. States' Submissions and the EPA's Analysis

    Iowa: Iowa and the EPA's supplemental analysis concluded that the
state does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state for the following reasons: (1) There are no designated
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Iowa or in surrounding states;
(2) available monitoring data in Iowa and in the surrounding states
show annual average concentrations below the standard; and (3) Iowa has
SIP-approved regulations to assure that the state is not interfering
with attainment or maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in
any other state. As noted in EPA's CSAPR analysis, Iowa's emissions
contribute to a potential maintenance receptor in Madison County,
Illinois. As stated above, the 2016 memorandum notes that because of
data quality problems, nonattainment and maintenance projections were
not conducted for monitors in a number of states including Illinois.
The EPA notes, however, that data quality problems have subsequently
been resolved for all of the aforementioned areas. These areas have
current design values below the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS and are
expected to continue to maintain the NAAQS due to downward emission
trends for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and therefore are not considered potential receptors
for the purpose of interstate transport for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
    With regard to the 17 California potential receptors, located in
the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas, Iowa is
nearly 1,500 miles--and downwind--from

California. With this large distance and a general prevailing west to
east wind flow, there is no evidence that Iowa will impact the
California potential receptors, and as a result, the EPA concludes that
emissions in Iowa do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance.
    With regard to the Shoshone County, Idaho receptor, Iowa is more
than 1000 miles and downwind of this receptor. With this distance and
prevailing wind direction, there is no evidence that Iowa will impact
this area, and as a result, EPA concludes that sources in Iowa do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected Shoshone County
receptor.
    The EPA's supplemental analysis focused on whether there are
maintenance or nonattainment receptors for 2021 to which Iowa is
linked. As noted above, the EPA's 2016 memorandum identifies the
Allegheny County Liberty monitor (AQS ID: 42-003-0064) as a potential
maintenance receptor in 2017, but indicates that it is likely to attain
and maintain the annual standard in 2021. The EPA's review of the CSAPR
contribution modeling indicates that Iowa's contribution to the Liberty
monitor is less than one percent of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Based on weight of the evidence presented above, the EPA proposes
to approve Iowa's SIP submission on grounds that it addresses the
State's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) good neighbor obligation for the 2012
PM2.5 standard and that the State will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
    Nebraska: Nebraska and the EPA's supplemental analysis concluded
that it does not contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in any other
state for the following reasons: (1) There are no designated
PM2.5 nonattainment areas in Nebraska or in surrounding
states; (2) modeling conducted by EPA in support of CSAPR indicates
that Nebraska contribution to any designated 2012 PM2.5
nonattainment area is less than one percent of the standard; and (3)
available monitoring data in Nebraska and in the surrounding states
show annual average concentrations below the standard.
    With regard to the 17 California potential receptors, located in
the San Joaquin Valley or South Coast nonattainment areas, Nebraska is
well over 1,000 miles--and downwind--from California. With this large
distance and a general prevailing west to east wind flow, there is no
evidence that Nebraska will impact the California potential receptors,
and as a result, the EPA concludes that emissions in Nebraska do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance.
    With regard to the Shoshone County, Idaho receptor, Nebraska is
more than 800 miles and downwind of this receptor. With this distance
and prevailing wind direction, there is no evidence that Nebraska will
impact this area, and as a result, the EPA concludes that sources in
Nebraska do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS at the projected
Shoshone County receptor.
    The EPA's supplemental analysis focused on whether there are
maintenance or nonattainment receptors for 2021 to which Nebraska is
linked. As noted above, the EPA's 2016 memorandum identifies the
Allegheny County Liberty monitor (AQS ID: 42-003-0064) as a potential
maintenance receptor in 2017, but indicates that it is likely to attain
and maintain the annual standard in 2021. The EPA's review of the CSAPR
contribution modeling indicates that Nebraska's contribution to the
Liberty monitor is less than one percent of the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
    Based on weight of the evidence presented above, EPA proposes to
approve Nebraska's SIP submission on grounds that it addresses the
State's 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) good neighbor obligation for the 2012
PM2.5 standard and that the state will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.

VII. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve the following elements of Iowa's
December 22, 2015, and Nebraska's February 22, 2016, infrastructure SIP
submissions: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--significant contribution to
nonattainment (prong 1), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS
(prong 2) as applicable to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxides.

    Dated: June 18, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

 Subpart-Q Iowa

0
2. In Sec.  52.820, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entry ``(51)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e)* * *

                                   EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable
  Name of nonregulatory SIP       geographic or          State        EPA approval date         Explanation
          provision             nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(51) Section                   Statewide..........      12/15/2015  [Date of publication   This action approves
 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)-significa                                        of the final rule in   the following CAA
 nt contribution to                                                  the Federal            elements: 110(a)(1)
 nonattainment (prong 1), and                                        Register], [Federal    and
 interfering with maintenance                                        Register citation of   110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--
 of the NAAQs (prong 2)                                              the final rule].       prongs 1 and 2 [EPA-
 (Interstate Transport)                                                                     R07-OAR-2019-0332;
 Infrastructure Requirements                                                                FRL-9995-31-Region
 for the 2012 Annual Fine                                                                   7].
 Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
 NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subpart CC-Nebraska

0
3. In Sec.  52.1420, as proposed to be amended May 9, 2019, at 84 FR
20319, the table in paragraph (e) is further amended by adding entry
``(36)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e)* * *

                                 EPA-Approved Nebraska Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable
  Name of nonregulatory SIP       geographic or          State        EPA approval date         Explanation
          provision             nonattainment area  submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(36) Section                   Statewide..........       2/22/2016  [Date of publication   This action approves
 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) -                                                of the final rule in   the following CAA
 significant contribution to                                         the Federal            elements: 110(a)(1)
 nonattainment (prong 1), and                                        Register], [Federal    and
 interfering with maintenance                                        Register citation of   110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--
 of the NAAQs (prong 2)                                              the final rule].       prongs 1 and 2 [EPA-
 (Interstate Transport)                                                                     R07-OAR-2019-0332;
 Infrastructure Requirements                                                                FRL-9995-31-Region
 for the 2012 Annual Fine                                                                   7].
 Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
 NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-13370 Filed 6-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Rule 4612,
Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations

Prepared by: Nicole Law

Reviewed by: Andrew Steckel

	August 2011

RULE IDENTIFICATION

Agency:			San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD)

SIP Approved Rule:	Rule 4612- Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating
Operations – Phase II

Amended – September 20, 2007; Submitted – March 7, 2008

EPA Approved – January 19, 2010 (75 FR 2796)

Subject of this TSD:	Rule 4612- Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment
Coating Operations –

Amended – October 21, 2010; Submitted – April 5, 2011

RULE SUMMARY –SJVUAPCD Rule 4612, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment
Coating Operations is a rule designed to limit volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions associated with coating of motor vehicles, mobile
equipment, and related parts and components.   The rule also limits VOC
emissions from organic solvent cleaning, storage, and disposal
associated with such operations and describes administrative
requirements for maintaining records, recordkeeping, and test methods.
Rule 4612 has been revised to remove redundant language and clarify the
intent of requirements of the rule.  Changes from the SIP approved Rule
4612 rule include:

1.	Renamed the rule to remove the “Phase II” label, as that
terminology is no longer used.

Edited definitions in Section 3. Definition of an “aerosol coating
product” has been reworded and definitions for “operator” and
“permanently labeled” have been added.

Edited an exemption in section 4.1.4.  The exemption now clarifies that
coatings applied to new motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment during
manufacture on an assembly line are regulated under District Rule 4602
Motor Vehicle Assembly Coatings.

Updated coating limits in Section 5 to remove effective dates and
expired limits.  Also removed from this section are repetitive
references to the VOC emission control system option (former sections
5.3 and 5.4.2).  New sections <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> were added to clarify
requirements for High-Volume Low-Pressure spray equipment.  Section
5.7.4 was edited to clarify what is required if a spray gun is used to
comply with coating application methods.

Small additions were made to Section 6.0, Administrative Requirements.
Section 6.4 clarifies that records need to be maintained on a daily
basis and the quantity of each type of coating used is information that
needs to be recorded.

EPA EVALUATION - The following criteria were used to evaluate the
submitted rule.

1.	Enforceability - The Bluebook (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988) and the
Little Bluebook (Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other
Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) and State
Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I
of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) were
used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement
for enforceability.

2.	RACT – CARB’s Suggested Control Measure (SCM) titled,
“Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings,” SJVUAPCD’s
2009 RACT SIP Demonstration (April 16, 2009), “Preamble, Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard: (70 FR
71612 November 29, 2005), Letter from William T. Hartnett to Regional
Air Division Directors, “RACT Qs & As – Reasonable Available Control
Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers” (May 18, 2006),  and other
state and local rules for this category were used to help evaluate the
RACT requirements of CAA §182(b)(2).

3.	SIP Relaxation - Where previous versions of rules have been SIP
approved, new submittals must comply with CAA §110(l) and §193
regarding SIP relaxations.

The Staff Report which accompanies SJVUAPCD Rule 4612 includes a RACT
Analysis.  We concur with SJVUAPCD’s conclusion that Rule 4612
implements RACT for reasoning including:

Rule 4612 closely resembles California Air Resources Board’s Suggested
Control Measure for Automotive Coatings.  This is a recent guidance
document from 2005 and we believe a reliable source for satisfying RACT.

SJVUAPCD, SCAQMD and the other large California nonattainment agencies
generally have among the most stringent stationary source requirements
nationwide, and we are not aware of other reasonably available
technological or operational controls likely to significantly reduce
additional emission from this activity.

However, we note that we do not agree with the complete analysis.
Section VIII. B of the staff report states that two categories (precoat
and Topcoat-Metallic/Iridescent) are not as stringent as other district
rules and Table 3 of the staff report depicts this also.  We believe
this is an incorrect analysis as discussed in our final rulemaking
notice where the approval of the March 7, 2008 submittal was finalized
(75 FR 2798, Response #4) on January 19, 2010.

The submitted rule is as stringent as CARB’s 2005 SCM for Automotive
Coatings and fulfils RACT requirements.  The recordkeeping and other
requirements generally ensure that the submitted rule can be enforced.
Lastly, the submitted rule revisions clarify and eliminates repetition
in the version previously approved into the SIP, so the submitted rule
does not relax the SIP and complies with §110(l) and §193.

RULE DEFICIENCIES – We have identified no deficiencies with Rule 4612
sufficient for EPA to propose less than full approval.

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT RULE REVISION – There are no
additional recommendations for the next rule revision.

EPA ACTION -

The submitted revisions to Rule 4612 strengthen and clarify the SIP.
The rule largely fulfils the relevant CAA §110 and part D requirements.
 EPA staff recommends approval of Rule 4612 pursuant to CAA §110(k)(3)
and §301(a).

REFERENCES -

1.	SJVUAPCD Rule 4612, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating
Operations – Phase II, as approved into the SIP on January 19, 2010.

2.	SJVUAPCD Rule 4612, Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating
Operations, as submitted on April 5, 2011.

3.	“Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings,” CARB,
October 2005.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/coatings/autorefin/scm/sreport/appenda.pdf

4. 	“Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for
Ozone State Implementation Plans (SIP)” SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009.

5.	“Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988 (cover only).

6.	“Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,” (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (cover only).

7. 	Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy
that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.

8.  	“State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990” 57 FR
13498, April 16, 1992.

9.	“Preamble, Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard” 70 FR 71612; Nov. 29, 2005.

10.	Letter from William T. Hartnett to Regional Air Division Directors,
“RACT Qs & As – Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT)
Questions and Answers,” May 18, 2006.

( PAGE  6 (


From:		Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US

To<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Cc:		Peter Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve Fruh/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,
Teresa Clemons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date:		12/15/2011 11:10 AM

Subject:	Pulp and Paper

Attached is the clean version of the pulp and paper preamble and reg
text.

(See attached file: E.O. 12866

PulpPaper-RTR-Proposal_2060_AQ41_12_15_11_900am (clean).doc)

Robin Dunkins

Leader, Natural Resources Group

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards US Environmental Protection
Agency  (C504-03)

(phone)<PHONE_NUMBER>   (fax) 919-541- 3470

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>