[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48573-48574]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22515]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0013; Notice 2]

Hyundai Motor America, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai), on behalf of Hyundai Motor
Company, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2015 Hyundai
Sonata motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment. Hyundai filed a noncompliance information report
dated February 5, 2017. Hyundai also petitioned NHTSA on February 3,
2017, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on the decision contact Leroy
Angeles, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2015 Hyundai Sonata motor vehicles do not fully
comply with paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment. Hyundai filed a noncompliance information report dated
February 5, 2017, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
Hyundai also petitioned NHTSA on February 3, 2017, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the Hyundai petition was published, with a 30-
day public comment period, on April 17, 2017, in the Federal Register
(82 FR 18208). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2017-0013.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 3,054 MY 2015 Hyundai Sonata
motor vehicles, manufactured between April 25, 2014, and May 16, 2014,
are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Hyundai explains that the noncompliance is that
the lens on the replaceable headlamp assembly in the subject vehicles
is missing the HB bulb designation, as required by paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1
of FMVSS No. 108.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 of FMVSS No. 108 states in
pertinent part:

    S<IP_ADDRESS> Replacable bulb headlamp markings.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 The lens of each replaceable bulb headlamp must bear
permanent marking in front of each replacable light source with
which it is equipped that states either: The HB Type, if the light
source conforms to S11 of this standard for filament light sources,
or the bulb marking/designation provided in compliance with Section
VIII of appendix A of 49 CFR part 564 (if the light source conforms
to S11 of this standard for discharge light sources) . . .

    V. Summary of Hyundai's Petition: Hyundai described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Hyundai submitted the following
reasoning:
    (a) The noncompliance has no impact on headlamp performance: The
mismarked headlamps are the correct headlamps for the affected vehicles
and conform to all applicable FMVSS photometric and other requirements.
In a recent decision involving similar facts, NHTSA granted an
inconsequentiality petition involving a noncompliant bulb marking
because the use of the mismarked bulb would ``not create a
noncompliance with any of the headlamp performance requirements of
FMVSS No. 108 or otherwise present an increased risk to motor vehicle
safety.'' Osram Sylvania Products, Inc., grant of petition for decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 22943, 22944 (Dep't of Trans.
Apr. 17, 2013).

    (b) The lens is marked with an industry standard bulb type: The
headlamp lenses in question are clearly marked ``9005'' (the ANSI
designation), which are well-known alternative designations for the HB3
bulb. This designation is recognized throughout the automotive
industry, and is used by lighting manufacturers interchangeably with a
lamp's HB type.
    (c) The risk of consumer confusion is remote: A consumer can use
the 9005 ANSI alternative to properly identify and purchase the correct
replacement headlamp bulb for the affected vehicles. Hyundai searched a
number of national automotive parts stores (Autozone, O'Reilly,
Advanced Auto Parts, and Pep Boys), and found that all HB3 replacement
bulbs in these stores were marked with the 9005 ANSI designation. In
fact, the packaging on the replacement bulbs was more commonly marked
with the ANSI designation than the HB type.
    (d) NHTSA precedent supports granting this petition: NHTSA has
previously ruled that the noncompliance at issue here (lamps marked
with the ANSI designation rather than the HB type) is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety. On January 18, 2017, the Agency granted GM's
petition for inconsequential noncompliance regarding their high-beam
headlamp lenses on model year 2012-2015 Chevrolet Sonic passenger cars
that were not marked with ``HB3'' (the HB bulb type), as required by
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.1 of FMVSS No. 108. NHTSA granted the petition
stating:

    We agree with GM that the ANSI `9005' designation is a well-
known alternative designation for the HB3 light source and that the
replacement light source packaging is commonly marked with both the
HB type and ANSI designation. As such, we believe that consumers can
properly identify and purchase the correct replacement upper beam
light source for the affected vehicles.

    See General Motors, LLC, Grant of petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, (NHTSA-2015-0035).
    Hyundai concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: We agree with Hyundai that the ANSI ``9005''
designation is a well-known alternative designation for the HB3 light
source and that replacement light source packaging is commonly marked
with both the HB type and ANSI designation. As such, we believe that
consumers can properly identify and purchase the correct replacement
upper beam light source for the affected vehicles. Further, the unique
bulb holder design incorporated into the headlamps would prevent
consumers from installing a light source other than an HB3/9005 so
there would be no effect on headlamp performance.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that Hyundai has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS
No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Hyundai's petition is hereby granted and Hyundai is
consequently exempted from the obligation of providing notification of,
and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that Hyundai no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Hyundai notified
them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-22515 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52473-52476]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20657]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0060; FRL-9900-26-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Plantwide
Applicability Limit Permitting Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve portions of one revision to
the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the New
Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to EPA on January 8, 2013. The
January 8, 2013, proposed SIP revision adopts necessary rule revisions
to the PSD plantwide applicability limit (PAL) permitting provisions to
issue PALs to GHG sources. EPA is proposing to approve the January 8,
2013 SIP revision to the New Mexico PSD permitting program as
consistent with federal requirements for PSD permitting. At this time,
EPA is proposing to sever and take no action on the portion of the
January 8, 2013, SIP revision that relates to the provisions of EPA's
July 20, 2011 GHG Biomass Deferral Rule. EPA is proposing this action
under section 110 and part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). EPA
is not proposing to approve these rules within the exterior boundaries
of a reservation or other areas within any Tribal Nation's
jurisdiction.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2013-0060, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email: Ms. Adina Wiley at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section (6PD-R), at fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Delivery: Ms. Adina Wiley, Air Permits Section
(6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2013-0060. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Do not submit information through http://www.regulations.gov or email, if you believe that it is CBI or
otherwise protected from disclosure. The http://www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means that EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment along
with any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters and any form of encryption and should be
free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air
Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays
except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to make an appointment. If
possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in
advance of your visit. A 15 cent per page fee will be charged for
making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check
in at the EPA Region 6 reception area on the seventh floor at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittals related to this SIP revision, and which are
part of the EPA docket, are also available for public inspection at the
Local Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment:
    New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1190 St.
Francis Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), Air Permits
Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue
(6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is
(214) 665-2115. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background for Our Proposed Action
    A. History of EPA's GHG-Related Actions
    B. EPA's Biomass Deferral Rule
    C. EPA's Tailoring Rule Step 3
II. Summary of State Submittal
III. EPA's Analysis of State Submittal
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for Our Proposed Action

    The Act at section 110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop and
submit to EPA for approval into the state SIP, preconstruction review
and permitting programs applicable to certain new and modified
stationary sources of air pollutants for attainment and nonattainment
areas that cover both major and minor new sources and modifications,
collectively referred to as the New Source Review (NSR) SIP. The CAA
NSR SIP program is composed of three separate programs: Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD), Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the
CAA and applies in areas that meet the NAAQS--``attainment areas''--as
well as areas where there is insufficient information to determine if
the area meets the NAAQS--``unclassifiable areas.'' The NNSR SIP
program is established in part D of title I of the CAA and applies in
areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment areas.''
The Minor NSR SIP program addresses construction or modification
activities that do not emit, or have the potential to emit, beyond
certain major source thresholds and thus do not qualify as ``major''
and applies regardless of the designation of the area in which a source
is located. EPA regulations governing the criteria that states must
satisfy for EPA approval of the NSR programs as part of the SIP are
contained in 40 CFR 51.160-51.166.
    New Mexico submitted on January 8, 2013, regulations specific to
the New Mexico PSD permitting program for approval by EPA into the New
Mexico SIP. The January 8, 2013, SIP submittal includes the PSD
permitting provisions that were adopted on January 7, 2013 at 20.2.74
NMAC to defer the application of the PSD requirements to biogenic
carbon dioxide emissions from bioenergy and other biogenic stationary
sources consistent with the EPA's final rule ``Deferral for
CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and other Biogenic Sources
under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V
Programs'' (76 FR 43490) (hereafter referred to as the ``Biomass
Deferral Rule''). The January 8, 2013, SIP submittal also adopts
regulations that provide NMED the ability to issue GHG PALs consistent
with the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability
Limits Final Rule'' (77 FR 41051) hereafter referred to as the
``Tailoring Rule Step 3''.
    On July 12, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
issued its decision to vacate the Biomass Deferral Rule. See Center for
Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101).\1\ At this time,
EPA is proposing to sever and take no action on the portion of the
January 8, 2013, SIP submittal that adopted the biomass deferral
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The July 12, 2013, order states ``[it] is ORDERED, on the
court's own motion, that the Clerk withhold issuance of the mandate
herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for
rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P.
41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. This instruction to the Clerk is without
prejudice to the right of any party to move for expedited issuance
of the mandate for good cause shown.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's proposed action and the accompanying Technical Support
Document (TSD) present our rationale for proposing approval of these
regulations as meeting the minimum federal requirements for the
adoption and implementation of the PSD SIP permitting programs.

A. History of EPA's GHG-Related Actions

    This section briefly summarizes EPA's recent GHG-related actions
that provide the background for this action. For more information about
EPA's actions, please

see the preambles for the identified GHG-related rulemakings discussed
in the following paragraphs. The citations for each rulemaking are
included below in footnotes to aid the reader.
    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part are distinct from
one another, establish the overall framework for today's final action
on the New Mexico SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are
commonly called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\2\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration,'' \3\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \4\ and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' \5\ Taken together and in conjunction with the
CAA, these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted
from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that
such regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected
GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited
the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in
basis. EPA took this last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more
specifically, established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for
determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources. PSD is implemented through the SIP system, and so in December
2010, EPA promulgated several rules to implement the new GHG PSD SIP
program. Recognizing that some states had approved SIP PSD programs
that did not apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP call and, for some of
these States, finalized a finding of failure to submit followed by a
Federal Implementation Plan.6 7 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \3\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    \4\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    \5\ Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010).
    \6\ ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call; Final Rule'' 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010). New Mexico was
not subject to the SIP Call.
    \7\ ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure to Submit State
Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases'' 75 FR
81874 (December 29, 2010). New Mexico was not subject to the SIP
Call so EPA did not make a finding of failure to submit for New
Mexico.
    \8\ ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan'' 75 FR 82246
(December 30, 2010). New Mexico was not covered by the GHG PSD
Federal Implementation Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other states, EPA recognized that many states had approved SIP
PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for sources that
emit as little as 100 or 250 tpy of GHG, and that do not limit PSD
applicability to GHGs to the higher thresholds in the Tailoring Rule;
therefore, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule.\9\ Under that
rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the affected SIPs to the extent
those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on the ``error correction''
provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6). Under the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing
Rule, EPA withdrew the approval of the New Mexico PSD SIP only to the
extent that the New Mexico SIP covered GHG-emitting sources below the
Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA has since removed the Narrowing Rule
restrictions from the New Mexico SIP because we approved the revisions
to the New Mexico PSD program that were submitted on December 1, 2010,
establishing appropriate GHG PSD permitting thresholds consistent with
EPA's Tailoring Rule. See 76 FR 43149, July 20, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule'' 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Biomass Deferral Rule

    On July 20, 2011, EPA promulgated the final ``Deferral for
CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and other Biogenic Sources
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V
Programs'' (Biomass Deferral Rule). The Biomass Deferral delayed until
July 21, 2014 the consideration of CO2 emissions from
bioenergy and other biogenic sources when determining whether a
stationary source meets the PSD and Title V applicability thresholds.
    The D.C. Circuit Court issued its decision to vacate the Biomass
Deferral Rule on July 12, 2013.

C. EPA's Tailoring Rule Step 3

    On July 12, 2012, EPA promulgated the final ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits'' (GHG Tailoring Rule
Step 3 and GHG PALs). Following is a brief discussion of the Tailoring
Rule Step 3. For a full discussion of EPA's rationale for the rule, see
the notice of final rulemaking at 77 FR 41051.
    In the Tailoring Rule, we made regulatory commitments for
subsequent action, including promulgating the Tailoring Rule Step 3.
Specifically, we committed in Step 3 to propose or solicit comment on
lowering the 100,000/75,000 major source threshold on the basis of
three criteria that concerned whether the permitting authorities had
the necessary time to develop greater administrative capacity due to an
increase in resources or permitting experience, as well as whether the
EPA and the permitting authorities had developed ways to streamline
permit issuance. We committed to complete the Step 3 action by July 1,
2012.
    The EPA finalized Step 3 by determining not to lower the current
GHG applicability thresholds from the Step 1 and Step 2 levels at this
time. We found that the three criteria have not been met because state
permitting authorities have not had sufficient time and opportunity to
develop the necessary infrastructure and increase their GHG permitting
expertise and capacity, and that we and the state permitting
authorities have not had the opportunity to develop streamlining
measures to improve permit implementation. See 77 FR 41051, 41052.
    The Tailoring Rule Step 3 also promulgated revisions to our
regulations under 40 CFR part 52 for better implementation of the
federal program for establishing PALs for GHG emissions. A PAL
establishes a site-specific plantwide emission level for a pollutant
that allows the source to make changes at the facility without
triggering the requirements of the PSD program, provided that emissions
do not exceed the PAL level. Under the EPA's interpretation of the
federal PAL provisions, such PALs are already available under PSD for
non-GHG pollutants and for GHGs on a mass basis, and we revised the PAL
regulations to allow for GHG PALs to be established on a CO2e basis as
well. We also revised the regulations to allow a GHG-only source to
submit an application for a CO2e-based GHG PAL while also maintaining
its minor source status. We believe that these actions could streamline
PSD permitting programs by allowing sources and permitting authorities
to address GHGs one time for a source and avoid repeated subsequent
permitting actions for a 10- year period. See 77 FR 41051, 41052.

II. Summary of State Submittal

    EPA's most recent approval to the New Mexico PSD program was on
January 22, 2013, where we updated our approval of the NM PSD program
to include the required elements for PSD permitting of PM2.5
that were submitted on May 23, 2011. See 78 FR 4339. Since that time,
the State of New Mexico has adopted and submitted one revision to the
PSD program on January 8, 2013, affecting the following sections:
     <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Definitions,
     <IP_ADDRESS>0 NMAC--Actuals Plantwide Applicability Limits
(PALs)

These revisions have been submitted to adopt and implement the GHG
Biomass deferral provisions consistent with EPA's July 20, 2011 Final
Rule titled ``Deferral for CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and Other
Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Title V Programs'', and the Tailoring Rule Step 3 permitting
provisions consistent with EPA's July 12, 2012 Final Rule titled
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits''. The New
Mexico Environment Department received no comments on this rulemaking.

III. EPA's Analysis of State Submittal

    As explained more fully in the accompanying TSD in this rulemaking,
New Mexico has adopted and submitted regulations that are substantively
similar to the federal requirements for the permitting of GHG-emitting
sources subject to PSD. The detailed analysis in our TSD demonstrates
that the revisions to <IP_ADDRESS>(AZ)(1) and <IP_ADDRESS>0 NMAC adopted on
January 7, 2013, and submitted on January 8, 2013, appropriately
revised the PSD PAL permitting requirements to provide the NMED the
authority to issue GHG PALs, consistent with EPA's Tailoring Rule Step
3 for GHG PALs. Our analysis also demonstrated that non-substantive
revisions adopted at <IP_ADDRESS>(AZ)(1), (2), (2)(b), (3), (4), and (5)
to correct typographical errors are also approvable.
    Our analysis also demonstrates that New Mexico adopted revisions to
the definition of ``subject to regulation'' at <IP_ADDRESS>(AZ)(2)(a) NMAC
on January 7, 2013, and submitted on January 8, 2013, for the GHG
biomass deferral rule. The D.C. Circuit Court issued its decision to
vacate EPA's Biomass Deferral Rule on July 12, 2013. At this time, we
are proposing to sever and take no action on the submitted biomass
revisions from New Mexico.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA proposes to approve portions of the January 8, 2013, submitted
revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC into the New Mexico PSD SIP. New Mexico's
January 8, 2013, proposed SIP revision adopts the necessary rule
revisions to provide NMED the authority to issue GHG PALs in the New
Mexico PSD program. EPA has made the preliminary determination that the
January 8, 2013 revisions to 20.2.74 NMAC are approvable because they
are adopted and submitted in accordance with the CAA and EPA
regulations regarding PSD permitting for GHGs. Therefore, under section
110 and part C of the Act, and for the reasons stated above, EPA
proposes to approve the following revisions to the New Mexico SIP:
     Substantive revisions to <IP_ADDRESS>(AZ)(1) NMAC
establishing GHG PAL permitting requirements,
     Non-substantive revisions to <IP_ADDRESS>(AZ)(1), (2),
(2)(b), (3), (4), and (5) to correct formatting, and
     Substantive revisions to <IP_ADDRESS>0 NMAC establishing the
GHG PAL permitting requirements.
    EPA is proposing to sever and take no action at this time on the
submitted revisions to <IP_ADDRESS>(AZ)(2)(a) NMAC. The D.C. Circuit Court
issued an order to vacate EPA's Biomass Deferral Rule on July 12, 2013.
    EPA is not proposing to approve these rules within the exterior
boundaries of a reservation or other areas within any Tribal Nation's
jurisdiction.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air 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
action:
     is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and incorporation
by reference.

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

    Dated: August 9, 2013.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2013-20657 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 188 (Monday, September 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60839-60840]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21278]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028]

MET Laboratories, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for MET Laboratories, Inc., as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
September 28, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's web page includes
information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET), as a NRTL. MET's expansion
covers the addition of two test standards to the scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require
testing and certification of the products.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides the preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page
for each NRTL that details the scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the agency's website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    MET submitted two applications, one dated June 28, 2018 (OSHA-2006-
0028-0066), and another dated January 14, 2019 (OSHA-2006-0028-0067).
The applications seek to expand MET's scope of recognition to include
two additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis
of the applications and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did
not perform any on-site reviews in relation to these applications.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing MET's expansion
applications in the Federal Register on February 21, 2020 (85 FR
10192). The agency requested comments by March 9, 2020, and received no
comments in response to the preliminary notice. OSHA now is proceeding
with this final notice to grant expansion of MET's scope of
recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
MET's applications, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-3655, Washington, DC
20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket No. OSHA-2006-0028 contains all
materials in the record concerning MET's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA examined MET's expansion applications, the capability to meet
the requirements of the test standards, and other pertinent
information. Based on the review of this evidence, OSHA finds that MET
meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of the scope of
recognition, subject to conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is
proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of MET's scope of
recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of MET's scope of recognition to
testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance
to the test standards listed in Table 1.

 Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in MET's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Test standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 60335-2-24.............  Household and Similar Electrical Appliances--
                             Safety--Part 2-24: Particular Requirements
                             for Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream
                             Appliances and Ice-Makers.
UL 60079-18...............  Explosive Atmospheres--Part 18: Equipment
                             Protection by Encapsulation ``m''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standards listed above as American National Standards. However,
for convenience, OSHA may use the designation of the standards-
developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI
designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL
1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular
test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test
standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to
determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
MET must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. MET must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in the operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. MET must meet all the terms of the recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. MET must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on MET's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
scope of recognition of MET, subject to the conditions specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912,
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on September 22, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-21278 Filed 9-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: November 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 65506-65507]
[DOCID:fr08no06-70]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0848; FRL-8099-9]

Notice of Filing of Pesticide Petitions for Establishment to
Regulations for Residues of Fenamidone in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide
petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of
fenamidone in or on carrot; sunflower; brassica, head and stem,
subgroup 5A; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; vegetables, fruiting,
group 8; vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group 4; strawberry; and
cotton.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 8, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0848 and pesticide petition number (PP), by
one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0848. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shaja R. Brothers, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is printing a summary of each pesticide petition received under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21
U.S.C. 346a, proposing the establishment of regulations in 40 CFR part
180 for residues of fenamidone in or on carrot; sunflower; brassica,
head and stem, subgroup 5A; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B;
vegetables, fruiting, group 8; vegetable, leafy, except brassica, group
4; strawberry; and cotton. EPA has determined that the pesticide
petitions contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
support granting of the pesticide petitions. Additional data may be
needed before EPA rules on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petitions included in
this notice, prepared by the petitioner along with a description of the
analytical method available for the detection and measurement of
fenamidone residues is available on EPA's Electronic Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.
 To locate this information on the home page of

EPA's Electronic Docket, select ``Quick Search'' and type the OPP
docket ID number. Once the search has located the docket, clicking on
the ``Docket ID'' will bring up a list of all documents in the docket
for the pesticide including the petition summary.

New Tolerances

    1. PP 6E7109, 5E6924, and 5E6925. Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 West, Princeton, NJ
08540, proposes to establish tolerances for residues of the fungicide,
fenamidone (4H-Imidazol-4-one, 3,5-dihydro-5-methyl-2-(methylthio)-5-
phenyl-3 (phenylamino)-, (S)-) in or on the following raw agricultural
commodities:
    PP 6E7109 proposes to establish a tolerance for carrot at 0.15
parts per million (ppm).
    PP 5E6924 proposes to establish a tolerance for sunflower at 0.08
ppm.
    PP 5E6925 proposes to establish tolerances for brassica, head and
stem, subgroup 5A at 4.0 ppm; brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 35
ppm; vegetables, fruiting, group 8 at 2.0 ppm; and vegetable, leafy,
except brassica, group 4 at 35 ppm.
    2. PP 5F6898. Bayer Crop Science, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709, also proposes to establish tolerances for
residues of the fungicide, fenamidone (4H-Imidazol-4-one, 3,5-dihydro-
5-methyl-2-(methylthio)-5-phenyl-3 (phenylamino)-, (S)-) in or on
cotton, undelinted seed at 0.02 ppm; cotton, gin byproducts at 0.02
ppm; and strawberry at 0.02 ppm.
    Although residue levels approaching the proposed tolerances are
unlikely, independently validated enforcement methods are available for
determining residues of fenamidone and relevant metabolites. Residues
are first extracted from the crop matrix by blending or shaking with a
mixture of acetonitrile and water. After filtration, an aliquot of the
extract is rotary evaporated to near dryness, then diluted with water.
Cleanup is accomplished on a HR-P polymeric solid phase extraction
(SPE) cartridge and an amino SPE cartridge. Residues are quantified by
HPLC with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS). The method
limits of quantification (LOQ) are 0.02 ppm for fenamidone, and its
metabolites, RPA 412636, RPA 412708, and RPA 410193 in potato tubers
and processed fractions, tomatoes and processed fractions, cucumbers,
squash, cantaloupes, head and leaf lettuce, onions, spinach, and wheat
raw agricultural commodities and processed fractions.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: October 26, 2006.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[FR Doc. E6-18873 Filed 11-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 38186]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16302]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1972-000]

Indeck Corinth Limited Partnership; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Indeck Corinth Limited Partnership's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 15, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 25, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16302 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54879-54881]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21575]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0582]
RIN 1625-AA08

Notice of Proposed Rule Making; Atlantic Ocean, Key West, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary special
local regulation for the RWO Offshore World Championship on November
10, 12 and 14, 2021. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life
on navigable waters on the waters of the Key West Main Ship Channel,
Key West Turning Basin, and Key West Harbor Entrance in Key West, FL.
This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area without permission from the Captain of the Port Key West
or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this
proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before October 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2021-0582 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Ensign Vera Max, Sector Key West
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On May 7, 2021, Race World Offshore notified the Coast Guard that
it will be conducting a high speed boat race from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. on November 10, 12, and 14, 2021. Approximately 50 participants
and 200 spectator craft will attend the event, which will take place in
the Atlantic Ocean, off the tip of Key West, Florida, on the waters of
the Key West Main Ship Channel, Key West Turning Basin, and Key West
Harbor Entrance in Key West, FL. The Captain of the Port Key West has
determined the potential hazards associated with the high speed boat
race would be a safety concern for the participants, participant
vessels, and the general public.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants,
spectators, and vessels on the navigable waters of the Key West Main
Ship Channel, Key West Turning Basin, and Key West Harbor Entrance
before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with a 15-day prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant
to section (b)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553). This provision authorizes an agency to publish a rule in less
than 30 days before its effective date for ``good cause found and
published with the rule.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for publishing this NPRM with a 15-day
comment period because it is impracticable to provide a 30-day comment
period because we must establish this safety zone by November 10, 2021.
A 15-day comment period would allow the Coast Guard to provide for
public notice and comment, but also update the proposed regulation soon
enough that the length of the notice and comment period does not
compromise safety.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Key West proposes to establish a temporary special local
regulation from 9:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. each day on November 10, 12,
and 14, 2021. The proposed special local regulation would consist of
two regulated areas: (1) A race and safety buffer area and (2) a
spectator area. These areas would prohibit persons and vessels from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
race area or buffer zone and prohibits vessels from transiting at
speeds that cause wake within the spectator area, unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative. The
special local regulation would cover all navigable waters in the
Atlantic Ocean, off the tip of Key West, Florida, on the waters of the
Key West Main Ship Channel, Key West Turning Basin, and Key West Harbor
Entrance. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of
this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the location,
duration, and time-of-day of the regulated area. Although persons and
vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the
area without authorization from the COTP or a designated
representative, they will be able to safely transit around the area.
Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners
via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the area, and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the area between race heats.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a
temporary special local regulation for a 7 hour duration on 3 days that
would prohibit entry into the race area or buffer zone, and prohibit
vessels from transiting at speeds that cause wake within the spectator
area. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the

person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received
without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or
vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.T799-0582 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T799-0582  Special Local Regulation; RWO World Championship,
Key West, FL.

    (a) Locations. The following regulated areas are established as
special local regulations. All coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
    (1) Race and Safety Buffer Area. Waters of the Atlantic Ocean of
Key West, FL that are encompassed within the following points: Starting
at Point 1 in position 24[deg]32.506' N, 81[deg]49.984' W; thence
southwest to Point 2 in position 24[deg]32.455' N, 81[deg]49.040' W;
thence northwest to Point 3 in position 24[deg]32.559' N,
81[deg]49.584' W; thence northwest to Point 4 in position
24[deg]32.608' N, 81[deg]49.628' W; thence northwest to Point 5 in
position 24[deg]33.095' N, 81[deg]49.265' W; thence northeast to Point
6 in position 24[deg]33.518' N, 81[deg]48.902' W; thence northeast to
Point 7 in position 24[deg]33.908' N, 81[deg]48.448' W; thence east to
Point 8 in position 24[deg]33.898' N, 81[deg]48.364' W; thence
southeast back to origin.
    (2) Spectator Area. All waters of the Atlantic Ocean in Key West,
FL that are encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point
1 in position 24[deg]33.123' N, 81[deg]49.290' W; thence northeast to
Point 2 in position 24[deg]33.545' N, 81[deg]48.923' W; thence east to
Point 3 in position 24[deg]33.518' N, 81[deg]48.902' W thence southwest
to point 4 in position 24[deg]33.095' N, 81[deg]49.265' W thence west
back to origin.
    (b) Definition. As used in this section, the term ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port Key West in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) All non-participant persons and vessels, except those persons
and vessels participating in the high-speed boat races, are prohibited
from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within
the regulated areas described in paragraph (a) of this section unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or their designated
representative.
    (2) All persons are prohibited from entering the water or swimming
in the spectator area described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (3) All vessels are prohibited from transiting at speeds that cause
wake within the spectator area described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
    (4) To seek permission to enter, contact the Captain of the Port
Key West or a designated representative by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or via VHF radio on channel 16. If authorization is granted by the
Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative, all
persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated
representative
    (5) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners and on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 9:30
a.m. until 4:30 p.m. each day on November 10, 12, and 14, 2021.

    Dated: September 29, 2021.
A. Chamie,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Key West.
[FR Doc. 2021-21575 Filed 10-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72942-72944]
[DOCID:fr29no10-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30754; Amdt. No. 3400]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective November 29, 2010. The compliance date
for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of November 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or
    4. 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.
    Availability--All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available
online free of charge. Visit http://www.nfdc.faa.gov to register.
Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may
be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City,
OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or revoking SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulators description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
Forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, in addition
to their complex nature and the need for a special format make
publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical.
Furthermore, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs,
Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their depiction on
charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. The advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on
FAA forms is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR
sections and specifies the types of SIAPs and the effective dates of
the, associated Takeoff Minimums and ODPs. This amendment also
identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the
amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as contained in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The
circumstances which created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums
and ODP amendments may require making them

effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPS and Takeoff
Minimums and ODPS, an effective date at least 30 days after publication
is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPS contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedures before adopting these SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and
ODPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where
applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in
less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    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.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule '' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and
(3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 12, 2010.
Ray Towles,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and/or Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0902 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 16 DEC 2010

Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY
9L, Amdt 21
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY
27R, Amdt 9
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, LOC RWY 9R,
Amdt 5
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, LOC/DME RWY 13,
Amdt 1
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Intl, VOR RWY 27R,
Amdt 12A
Centerville, IA, Centerville Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 34, Orig-A
Waverly, IA, Waverly Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 3A
Winfield/Arkansas City, KS, Strother Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig-
A
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, ILS OR
LOC RWY 10, ILS RWY 10 (CAT II), ILS RWY 10 (CAT III), Amdt 20
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, ILS OR
LOC RWY 15L, Amdt 2
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 15L, Amdt 2
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 33R, Amdt 2
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV
(GPS) Y RWY 10, Amdt 2
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV
(GPS) Y RWY 33L, Amdt 2
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV
(RNP) Z RWY 10, Amdt 1
Baltimore, MD, Baltimore/Washington Intl Thurgood Marshall, RNAV
(RNP) Z RWY 33L, Amdt 1
Troy, MI, Oakland/Troy, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig-B
Cabool, MO, Cabool Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
2
Caruthersville, MO, Caruthersville Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Amdt
1A
Watford, ND, Watford City Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Orig-A
Glens Falls, NY, Floyd Bennett Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Hamilton, NY, Hamilton Muni, VOR-A, Amdt 4
Newburgh, NY, Stewart Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, ILS RWY 9 (CAT II),
Amdt 12
Willoughby, OH, Willoughby Lost Nations Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23,
Orig-A
Tulsa, OK, Tulsa Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 18L, Amdt 15A
Klamath Falls, OR, Klamath Falls, VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 14, Amdt 5B
Pampa, TX, Perry Lefors Field, NDB RWY 17, Amdt 4B
Pampa, TX, Perry Lefors Field, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 2B
Eagle River, WI, Eagle River Union, LOC/DME RWY 4, Orig-A
Huntington, WV, Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field, ILS OR LOC RWY
12, Amdt 13
Huntington, WV, Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field, RADAR-1, Amdt 7
Huntington, WV, Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY
12, Amdt 2

Effective 13 JAN 2011

Cordova, AK, Merle K (Mudhole) Smith, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 27, Amdt 10
Cordova, AK, Merle K (Mudhole) Smith, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Amdt 1
Koyukuk, AK, Dibvy, DIBVY TWO Graphic Obstacle DP
Platinum, AK, Platinum, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1A
Berryville, AR, Carroll County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7, Orig
Berryville, AR, Carroll County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Orig
Berryville, AR, Carroll County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Saipan Island, CQ, Francisco C. Ada/Saipan Intl, GPS RWY 7, Orig-B,
CANCELLED
Saipan Island, CQ, Francisco C. Ada/Saipan Intl, GPS RWY 25, Amdt
1C, CANCELLED
Saipan Island, CQ, Francisco C. Ada/Saipan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7,
Orig
Saipan Island, CQ, Francisco C. Ada/Saipan Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25,
Orig
Jacksonville, FL, Cecil Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9R, Orig
Jacksonville, FL, Cecil Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L, Orig
Tampa, FL, Tampa Intl, RNAV (RNP) Y RWY 19L, Amdt 1
Tampa, FL, Tampa Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 9
Coeur D'Alene, ID, Coeur D'Alene-Pappy Boyington Field, VOR/DME RWY
1, Amdt 2
Chicago/Rockford, IL, Chicago/Rockford Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7, ILS
RWY 7 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 7 (CAT II), ILS RWY 7 (CAT III), Amdt 1C
Manito, IL, Manito Mitchell, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
CANCELLED
Manito, IL, Manito Mitchell, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 3, CANCELLED
Oberlin, KS, Oberlin Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Washington, KS, Washington County Memorial, NDB-A, Amdt 1
Washington, KS, Washington County Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Orig
Washington, KS, Washington County Memorial, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Washington, KS, Washington County Memorial, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacles DP, Orig
New Orleans, LA, Lakefront, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Salisbury, MD, Salisbury-Ocean City Wicomico Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY
32, Amdt 2
Salisbury, MD, Salisbury-Ocean City Wicomico Rgnl, VOR RWY 5, Amdt
10
St Charles, MO, St Charles, VOR OR GPS RWY 9, Amdt 4A, CANCELLED

Meridian, MS, Key Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 19, Orig-A
Garrison, ND, Garrison Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Stanley, ND, Stanley Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Broken Bow, NE, Broken Bow, Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 3
Harvard, NE, Harvard State, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Orig
Harvard, NE, Harvard State, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Harvard, NE, Harvard State, VOR/DME RNAV OR GPS RWY 35, Orig,
CANCELLED
Schribner, NE, Schribner State, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Orig
Portland, OR, Portland Intl, VOR-A, Amdt 10
Beaufort, SC, Beaufort County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 2
Rapid City, SD, Rapid City Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 19
Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 7,
Amdt 33
Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 25,
Amdt 1
Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, LOC/DME RWY 20,
Amdt 1
Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, NDB RWY 2, Amdt 6
Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, NDB RWY 20, Amdt 5
Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2,
Amdt 1
Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 7,
Amdt 3
Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20,
Amdt 2
Newport News, VA, Newport News/Williamsburg Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25,
Amdt 2
Norfolk, VA, Hampton Roads Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1
Norfolk, VA, Hampton Roads Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Orig,
CANCELLED
Yakima, WA, Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Amdt 5
Yakima, WA, Yakima Air Terminal/McAllister Field, ZILLA TWO Graphic
Obstacle DP
Huntington, WV, Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field, Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1

[FR Doc. 2010-29411 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                                                                      6560-50-P
                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                40 CFR Part 97
                      [EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-????-?]
Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances to Existing Electricity Generating Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule; notice of data availability (NODA).
________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: Through this notice of data availability (NODA), the EPA is providing notice of allocations of emission allowances to certain units for compliance with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Since its original promulgation, CSAPR has been amended in several subsequent rulemakings and its compliance deadlines have been tolled by three years pursuant to an order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit or Court). These allowance allocations, which supersede the allocations announced in a 2011 NODA, reflect the changes to CSAPR made in those subsequent rulemakings as well as "re-vintaging" of previously recorded allowances so as to account for the impact of tolling of the rule's deadlines. The allocations apply only to units that commenced commercial operation before 2010 and only to the extent that states do not provide alternative allowance allocations following procedures set out in the rule. A spreadsheet containing both the allowance allocations and the data upon which the allocations are based has been posted on the EPA's website.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions concerning this notice should be addressed to Michael Cohen, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Robert Miller, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS> The mailing address for each of these individuals is U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Data for Which Notice Is Being Provided
	Through this NODA, the EPA is providing notice of the availability of unit-specific default allocations of CSAPR allowances for electricity generating units (EGUs) that commenced commercial operation before 2010. The data are contained in an Excel spreadsheet titled "Unit Level Allocations Under the CSAPR FIPs After Tolling" that has been posted on the EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html. The spreadsheet contains default allocations of allowances under each of the four CSAPR trading programs for individual EGUs for each compliance year from 2015 through 2020. The spreadsheet also contains the data used to compute the allocations and describes how the computations are performed. The EPA is not requesting comment on the allocations, underlying data, or computation methodology.
	The EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of emission allowances to a given EGU does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the EGU. The EPA also notes that allocations are subject to potential correction under the rule.
II. Description of the Allocations
	CSAPR includes several emissions trading programs that require affected EGUs to hold emission allowances sufficient to cover their emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and/or sulfur dioxide (SO2) in each compliance period. For each trading program and compliance period, the rule establishes overall state "budgets" representing the maximum number of emission allowances that may be allocated to the group of affected EGUs in each covered state. Beginning with CSAPR's second compliance year, each covered state generally has the option to determine how the allowances in its state budget for each program should be allocated among the state's EGUs. However, for CSAPR's first compliance year, and by default for subsequent compliance years in situations where a state has not provided the EPA with the state's own allocations pursuant to an approved SIP revision, the allocations are made by the EPA.
	In the case of units commencing commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010, termed "new" units, the EPA's default allocations for each compliance year are annually determined during the compliance year based on current and prior year emission data, using a methodology set out in the regulatory text. In the case of units that commenced commercial operations before January 1, 2010, termed "existing" units, the EPA determined default allocations for all compliance years during the initial rulemaking based on 2006-2010 heat input data and 2003-2010 emissions data, according to a methodology finalized in the rulemaking but not included in the regulatory text. The regulatory text calls for default allocations to the existing units to be provided in a NODA. In July 2011, the EPA issued a NODA reflecting the default allocations for existing units as determined in the original CSAPR rulemaking.
	In three rulemakings finalized after the original CSAPR rulemaking, the EPA created budgets for several states added to the rule's ozone-season NOX trading program, increased some previously established state budgets, and changed the shares of some state budgets set aside for new units. In one of those rulemakings, the EPA also revised unit-specific allowance allocations in some states in order to account for emissions tonnage limitations established under certain consent decrees.
	As originally promulgated, compliance with CSAPR's trading programs was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012. However, on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit stayed the rule. On October 23, 2014, the Court granted the EPA's motion to lift the stay and toll the rule's compliance deadlines by three years, allowing the first compliance period to begin on January 1, 2015.
	The allowance allocations described in this NODA reflect all the budget, set-aside, and unit-specific allocation changes finalized in the rulemakings conducted after the original CSAPR rulemaking. The allocations also account for the impact of the tolling of the rule's compliance deadlines by re-vintaging previously recorded 2012 and 2013 allowances as 2015 and 2016 allowances, respectively.
III. Recordation of the Allocations
	CSAPR specifies deadlines for the EPA to record allowance allocations for each compliance year. In cases where those deadlines, as tolled by the Court's order, have not yet passed, and where states have not submitted alternative allowance allocations pursuant to approved SIP revisions, the EPA will record the allocations described in this NODA by the applicable recordation deadlines.
	To meet recordation deadlines that occurred before CSAPR was stayed, the EPA has already recorded most allowances allocated for CSAPR's first compliance year (originally 2012 and now 2015), and some allowances allocated for CSAPR's second compliance year (originally 2013 and now 2016). In these cases, the EPA will re-vintage the previously recorded 2012 and 2013 allowances into 2015 and 2016 allowances, respectively, consistent with the Court's order tolling CSAPR's compliance deadlines. The EPA will then record adjustments as needed to bring the re-vintaged, previously recorded allocations up to the 2015 and 2016 allocations described in this NODA. Allowance tracking system accounts will be briefly frozen while the re-vintaging and adjustments are carried out.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 97
	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Electric power plants, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

Availability of Data on Allocations of Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Allowances to Existing Electricity Generating Units
                                 (page 8 of 8)

Dated:

Reid P. Harvey,
Director, Clean Air Markets Division.