[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20443-20449]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07107]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R4-OAR-2022-0783; FRL-10523-01-R4]

Air Plan Partial Disapproval and Partial Approval; Tennessee;
Revisions to Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on
November 19, 2016, as supplemented on January 20, 2023, in response to
a finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call published on June 12,
2015, regarding provisions in the Tennessee SIP related to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) events.
Tennessee's January 20, 2023, supplemental SIP revision includes some
additional changes related to the 2015 SIP call, plus other changes
unrelated to the SIP call, in the affected chapter of Tennessee's
regulations. EPA is proposing to approve portions of the November 19,
2016, SIP revision, as supplemented by the January 20, 2023, SIP
revision, that the Agency has preliminarily determined correct certain
deficiencies identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP SSM call. In
addition, EPA is proposing to disapprove portions of the SIP revision
that the Agency has preliminarily determined fail to correct other
deficiencies identified in the 2015 SIP call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 8, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R4-
OAR-2022-0783 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not electronically submit any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Estelle Bae, Air Permits Section, Air
Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bae can be reached by telephone at
(404) 562-9143 or via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action
    B. Tennessee's SIP Provisions Related to Excess Emissions
II. Analysis of SIP Submissions
    A. Tennessee Chapter 1200-3-5, ``Visible Emission Regulations''
    B. Tennessee Chapter 1200-3-20, ``Limits on Emissions Due to
Malfunctions, Startups, and Shutdowns''
    1. Rule 1200-3-20-.01, ``Purpose''
    2. Rule 1200-3-20-.02, ``Reasonable Measures Required''
    3. Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Scheduled Maintenance''
    4. New Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Report Required Upon the Issuance
of Notice of Violation''
    i. January 20, 2023, Supplemental SIP Revision
    ii. November 19, 2016, SIP Revision
    5. New Rule 1200-3-20-.07, ``Special Reports Required''; New
Rule 1200-3-20-.08, ``Rights Reserved''; and New Rule 1200-3-20-.09,
``Additional Sources Covered''
III. Proposed Actions
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action

    On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) outlining EPA's policy at the time with
respect to SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed
specific SSM SIP provisions and explained how each one either did or
did not comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) with regard

to excess emission events.\1\ For each SIP provision that EPA
determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, EPA proposed to find that
the existing SIP provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP call under CAA section
110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, EPA issued a document supplementing
and revising what the Agency had previously proposed in the 2013 NPRM
in light of a United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit decision in which the Court found that the CAA
precludes authority of EPA to create affirmative defense provisions
applicable to private civil suits. EPA outlined its updated policy that
affirmative defense SIP provisions are not consistent with CAA
requirements. EPA proposed in the supplemental proposal document to
apply its revised interpretation of the CAA to specific affirmative
defense SIP provisions and proposed SIP calls for those provisions
where appropriate. See 79 FR 55920 (September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' hereinafter referred to as the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.''
See 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states, including Tennessee, were substantially inadequate to
meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call to those states to submit
SIP revisions to address the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month
deadline by which the affected states had to submit such SIP revisions.
States were required to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in
response to the SIP calls by November 22, 2016.
    EPA issued a memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\2\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to Tennessee in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did,
however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that
were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether EPA should
maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy set forth in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\3\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all
communities and populations, including overburdened communities,
receive the full health and environmental protections provided by the
CAA.\4\ The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the
2020 Memorandum regarding EPA's plans to review and potentially modify
or withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects
EPA's intent. EPA intends to implement the principles laid out in the
2015 SSM SIP Action as the Agency takes action on SIP submissions,
including Tennessee's November 19, 2016, SIP submittal, as supplemented
on January 20, 2023, provided in response to the 2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
    \4\ See 80 FR at 33985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Tennessee's SIP Provisions Related to Excess Emissions

    With regard to the Tennessee SIP, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA
determined that three provisions, Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. (hereinafter,
Rule) 1200-3-5-.02(1), 1200-03-20-.07(1), and 1200-03-20-.07(3), were
substantially inadequate to satisfy CAA requirements and issued a SIP
call for these provisions. See 80 FR 33839, 33965 (June 12, 2015). Rule
1200-3-5-.02, ``Exceptions,'' paragraph (1), provides that ``due
allowance may be made for visible emissions in excess of that permitted
in this chapter which are necessary or unavoidable due to routine
startup and shutdown conditions.'' Rule 1200-03-20-.07, ``Report
Required Upon the Issuance of Notice of Violation,'' paragraph (1),
provides the Technical Director with the discretion, upon review of a
source's excess emissions report, to determine if an event is a
violation and whether to pursue enforcement action. Paragraph (3) of
Rule 1200-03-20-.07 provides reporting requirements in the event of
excess emissions and specifies that failure to submit the required
report precludes the admissibility of the report data as an excuse for
causing excess emissions during malfunctions, startups, and shutdowns.
The rationale underlying EPA's determination that these provisions are
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and, therefore,
require revisions to remedy the provisions is detailed in the 2015 SSM
SIP Action and the accompanying proposals.
    On November 19, 2016, Tennessee submitted a SIP revision in
response to the SIP call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and
requested approval of changes to provisions in Chapter 1200-3-5
(``Visible Emissions Regulations'') and Chapter 1200-3-20 (``Limits On
Emissions Due To Malfunctions, Startups, And Shutdowns''). With regard
to the Chapter 1200-3-20 provisions, the State requested approval of
revisions to Rules 1200-3-20-.06(2), 1200-3-20-.06(4), and 1200-3-
20-.06(6) (as numbered in the current state code of regulations) to
address deficiencies that EPA identified in the 2015 SSM Action in SIP-
approved Rules 1200-03-20-.07(1) and 1200-03-20-.07(3).
    On January 20, 2023, Tennessee supplemented its 2016 SIP submission
to request removal of Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Scheduled Maintenance,''
resulting in the renumbering of Rules 1200-3-20-.07 through .10 to
1200-3-20-.06 through .09 (i.e., .07 is renumbered to .06, and so on),
and other changes to Chapter 1200-3-20.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Tennessee requested that Rule 1200-3-20-.03 and 1200-3-
20-.06(5) not be incorporated into the Tennessee SIP. See the
document titled ``Transmittal_Letter_SSM SIP Call Chapter 20
Supplemental.doc'' in the docket for this proposed action.

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

II. Analysis of SIP Submissions

A. Tennessee Chapter 1200-3-5, ``Visible Emission Regulations''

    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA determined that Rule 1200-3-
5-.02(1) is substantially inadequate to meet the fundamental
requirements of the CAA, as it operates as an impermissible
discretionary exemption because it allows a state official to excuse
excess visible emissions after giving ``due allowance'' to the fact
that they were emitted during startup or shutdown events.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 80 FR 33839, 33965 (June 12, 2015); 78 FR 12460, 12512-
13 (February 22, 2013) (explaining that ``this provision is
impermissible because it creates unbounded discretion that purports
to make a state official the unilateral arbiter of whether the
excess emissions in a given event constitute a violation of
otherwise applicable SIP emission limitations'' and because ``the
provision purports to authorize the state official to create
exemptions from applicable SIP emission limitations when such
exemptions are impermissible in the first instance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the November 19, 2016, submission, Tennessee's only revision to
Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1) is the addition of a sentence that states,
``However, no visible emission in excess of that permitted in this
chapter shall be allowed which can be proved to cause or contribute to
any violations of the Ambient Air Quality Standards contained in
Chapter 1200-03-03 and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' In
its November 19, 2016, SIP revision, TDEC asserts that ``[e]nforcement
of the NAAQS fulfills the responsibility of the State of Tennessee to
protect and maintain air quality standards.'' Although one possible
basis for a SIP call is a finding that a SIP is substantially
inadequate to attain or maintain a NAAQS, CAA section 110(k)(5) also
authorizes a SIP call when a SIP is substantially inadequate to comply
with any other CAA requirement(s), such as the requirement that
emission limitations must apply continuously. Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1) was
SIP-called because EPA found in the 2015 SSM Action that it was
inconsistent with that requirement--specifically, with sections
110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k).\7\ Thus, since the lone
revision to Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1) is the new language prohibiting excess
visible emissions which can be proved to cause or contribute to any
violations of ambient air quality standards, the specific deficiencies
EPA identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action with respect to Rule 1200-3-
5-02(1) have not been corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 80 FR 33839, 33965 (June 12, 2015); 78 FR 12460, 12512-
13 (February 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The revised version of Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1) still operates as an
impermissible discretionary exemption from compliance with applicable
emission limits in the SIP because it continues to allow a state
official to give ``due allowance'' for excess emissions that occur
during startup and shutdown events. Though the term ``due allowance''
is not defined in Tennessee's rules, the reference in the next sentence
to circumstances under which no excess visible emission ``shall be
allowed'' suggests that giving ``due allowance'' to startup and
shutdown conditions means that Tennessee is authorized to allow excess
emissions during such events.
    Pursuant to EPA's SSM policy, emission limitations must apply at
all times. Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1) effectively creates an exemption from
the SIP-approved opacity requirements of Chapter 1200-3-5 for periods
of startup and shutdown at the discretion of the Technical Secretary.
As explained in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and corresponding proposal,
this provision is impermissible not just because it creates unbounded
discretion for a state official to decide whether the excess emissions
in a given event constitute a violation of otherwise applicable SIP
emission limitations but also because it purports to authorize the
state official to create exemptions from applicable emission
limitations when such exemptions are not permissible in the first
instance. See 78 FR 12460, 12513 (February 22, 2013). EPA approval of
such broad and unbounded discretion to alter the existing legal
requirements of the SIP would be tantamount to allowing a revision of
the SIP without meeting the applicable procedural and substantive
requirements for such a SIP revision. See 80 FR 33839, 33928 (June 12,
2015). This type of director's discretion provision undermines the
purpose of emission limitations and the reductions they are intended to
achieve, thereby rendering them less enforceable by the EPA or through
a citizen suit. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to disapprove the
changes to Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1) transmitted in Tennessee's November 19,
2016, SIP revision, as they are not consistent with CAA requirements,
specifically CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), 110(a)(2)(C), and 302(k), and
therefore do not adequately address the specific deficiencies EPA
identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action with respect to the Tennessee
SIP.

B. Tennessee Chapter 1200-3-20, ``Limits on Emissions Due to
Malfunctions, Startups, and Shutdowns''

1. Rule 1200-3-20-.01, ``Purpose''
    The January 20, 2023, supplemental SIP revision makes minor changes
to Rule 1200-3-20-.01 that are not responsive to the 2015 SIP call.
Specifically, Tennessee seeks to remove the portion of this rule that
lists examples of sources that are considered to be an ``air
contaminant source.'' The definition of ``air contaminant source'' is
also included in the Tennessee SIP under Rule 1200-03-.02,
``Definitions,'' and examples of sources that are within the scope of
this definition are listed within the definition. This revision would
remove the redundancy of this term in the Tennessee SIP and does not
relax the applicability of the rules in Chapter 1200-3-20. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to approve the requested change to this Rule.
2. Rule 1200-3-20-02, ``Reasonable Measures Required''
    The January 20, 2023, supplemental SIP revision contains
substantive changes that are not responsive to the 2015 SIP call but
that strengthen the Tennessee SIP by expanding the applicability of
Rule 1200-3-20-02 by removing a portion of text that limits the Rule to
``sources identified in Tennessee Rule 1200-3-19, or by a permit
condition or an order issued by the Board or by the Technical Secretary
as being in or significantly affecting a nonattainment area.'' The
effect of removing this language is that this Rule would now apply to
all air contaminant sources in the State instead of sources that are in
or significantly affecting a nonattainment area. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve this change to the SIP.
3. Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Scheduled Maintenance''
    In its January 20, 2023, SIP revision, Tennessee is requesting
removal of Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Scheduled Maintenance,'' although it
was not SIP-called in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. Rule 1200-3-20-.06
specifies reporting requirements for any shutdown of air pollution
control equipment for necessary scheduled maintenance that will result
in excess emissions. Specifically, this rule requires notification to
the Technical Secretary within 24 hours of planned maintenance of air
pollution control equipment unless the maintenance is routine, in which
case the notifications may be made on an annual basis.

    Section 110(l) of the CAA provides that EPA shall not approve a
revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Section 193 of the CAA
provides that no control requirement in effect, or required to be
adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before the
CAA amendments of 1990 in a nonattainment area may be modified unless
the modification ensures greater or equivalent emission reductions of
such air pollutant. EPA proposes to approve the removal of this rule in
its entirety because the removal is not expected to cause any increase
in emissions. This revision does not remove a prohibition on excess
emissions or any specific requirements to minimize those emissions and
thus is not a relaxation of a control requirement. Furthermore, as
Tennessee notes in its submittal, the routine shutdown of air pollution
control equipment described in Rule 1200-3-20-.06 is inappropriate.
    EPA also notes that a requirement for sources to identify and
report any anticipated excess emissions event resulting from control
equipment undergoing scheduled maintenance is not a required element of
SIPs. The Tennessee SIP contains other reporting requirements that
include the reporting of actual excess emissions events to the State
once such events have occurred.\8\ Thus, the removal of Rule 1200-3-
20-.06 would not prevent TDEC from receiving reports of actual excess
emissions. EPA preliminarily finds that removing Rule 1200-3-20-.06
would not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA and would not constitute modification of a
control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order,
settlement agreement, or plan in effect before the CAA amendments of
1990 in a nonattainment area. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve
Tennessee's request to remove Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Scheduled
Maintenance,'' from the Tennessee SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, Rule 1200-3-10-.02 requires a source to report
any actual excess emissions if the source has a continuous emissions
monitoring system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. New Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Report Required Upon The Issuance of
Notice of Violation''
    Due to the deletion of Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Scheduled
Maintenance,'' as discussed above, Tennessee has renumbered existing
Rule 1200-3-20-.07, ``Report Required Upon The Issuance of Notice of
Violation,'' as Rule 1200-3-20-.06 and is requesting approval of a new
version of Rule 1200-3-20-.06 in the Tennessee SIP. The State's SIP
revisions submitted on November 19, 2016, and January 20, 2023, make
various changes to several paragraphs within this rule, some of which
are responsive to the 2015 SIP call. Although the January 20, 2023, SIP
revision was transmitted to EPA after the November 19, 2016, SIP
revision, it includes regulatory changes that became state-effective
prior to the changes made in response to the 2015 SSM SIP Action.
Because Tennessee's November 19, 2016, submission relies in part on
revisions submitted to EPA in the January 20, 2023, submission,\9\ EPA
addresses the State's January 20, 2023, SIP revision first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Tennessee had previously submitted the revisions contained
in the January 20, 2023, submission on October 10, 1994, however,
EPA never acted on that submission and Tennesse withdrew it from EPA
review on July 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. January 20, 2023, Supplemental SIP Revision
    Tennessee's January 20, 2023, SIP submission renumbers Rule 1200-3-
20-.07, ``Report Required Upon the Issuance of a Notice of Violation,''
to 1200-3-20-.06, consistent with the removal of current SIP-approved
Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Scheduled Maintenance.'' Tennessee also revises
the rule by splitting the requirements of paragraph .07(1) into two
paragraphs, now renumbered as .06(1) and .06(2). The text from current
SIP-approved paragraph .07(1) that has been moved to new paragraphs
.06(1) and (2) includes minor updates to the wording for clarity,
consistency with other Tennessee Rules and with the terms defined in
Chapter 1200-3-2, ``Definitions,'' and updates internal references to
the rules.\10\ However, EPA is proposing to disapprove new Rule 1200-3-
20-.06(1), as submitted in the January 20, 2023, supplemental SIP
revision, because this provision contains a cross-reference to Rule
1200-3-5-.02(1), which EPA is proposing to disapprove, as explained in
Section II.A, above. Specifically, Rule 1200-3-20-.06(1) requires
automatic issuance of a notice of violation (NOV) for excess emissions
except for ``visible emissions levels included as a startup and/or
shutdown permit condition under'' 1200-3-5-.02(1). Because EPA SIP-
called and is herein proposing to disapprove Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1), the
cross-reference to Rule 1200-3-5-.02(1), in itself, warrants
disapproval of Rule 1200-3-20-.06(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The state effective version of Rule 1200-3-20-.06(1)
includes the phrase ``or determined to be de minimis under Rule
1200-3-20-.06.'' Tennessee requested that this revision not be
incorporated into the Tennessee SIP. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
act on only the remainder of Rule 1200-3-20-.06(1) in this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, although Rule 1200-3-20-.06(1)'s exception from
automatic NOV issuance could be interpreted as a provision of state-
only enforcement discretion, it could also be interpreted to constrain,
or at least create uncertainty with respect to, EPA and citizen
enforcement. Even if interpreted to apply strictly to state enforcement
of emission limit exceedances, such provisions of state-only
enforcement discretion, because they do not apply to EPA or citizens,
are not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP. Thus, whether interpreted
as a provision of state-only enforcement discretion or as a
constriction of EPA or citizen enforcement, EPA proposes to disapprove
new Rule 1200-3-20-.06(1).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA considers new Rule 1200-3-20-.06(1) to be separable
from the remainder of Rule 1200-3-20-.06 and believes that its
disapproval of new paragraph (1) will not result in the portions of
Rule 1200-3-20-.06 that EPA proposes to approve being more stringent
than Tennessee anticipated or intended. See Bethlehem Steel Corp. v.
Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 1028, 1036-37 (7th Cir. 1984). Although
disapproval of (1) would eliminate an exception from automatic NOV
issuance, it also would eliminate the requirement for automatic NOV
issuance, resulting in no increase in stringency with respect to
Tennessee's authority and discretion to issue NOVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's January 20, 2023, revisions
to new Rule 1200-3-20-.06(2), (3), and (4). The revisions to new Rule
1200-3-20.06(2) consist of minor updates to the wording for
clarification purposes. New Rule 1200-3-20-.06(3) (former Rule 1200-3-
20-.07(2), now renumbered to .06(3)) describes the contents of the
report required to be submitted to the State when a notice of violation
is issued. The only changes made to this paragraph are minor wording
and punctuation changes. Next, the revisions to new Rule 1200-3-
20-.06(4) (former Rule 1200-3-20-.07(3), now renumbered to .06(4)),
include only minor wording changes via the January 20, 2023,
supplemental SIP revision. These revisions are not substantive in
nature and do not change any underlying requirements.
    The January 20, 2023, supplemental SIP submission includes the
addition of Rule 1200-3-20-.06(5), which lists various types of sources
and ``de minimis'' emission levels, below which no notice of
violation(s) of certain

pollutant limits will be automatically issued and SSM exemptions may
apply. However, Tennessee is not requesting that paragraph (5) be
incorporated into the SIP.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See the document titled ``Transmittal_Letter_SSM SIP Call
Chapter 20 Supplemental.doc'' in the docket for this proposed
action. Therefore, EPA is not proposing to act on the new Rule 1200-
3-20-.06(5) in this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. November 19, 2016, SIP Revision
    Regarding former Rule 1200-3-20-.07 paragraph (1) and paragraph
(3), EPA determined in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that these paragraphs
were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. In response to
the 2015 SSM SIP Action, Tennessee's November 19, 2016, SIP revision
requests EPA approval of changes to Rules 1200-3-20-.06(2) and .06(4),
as renumbered from .07(1) and .07(3), respectively. First, Tennessee's
submittal removes the language in former 1200-3-20-.07(1), renumbered
in the January 20, 2023, supplemental SIP revision as 1200-3-20-.06(2),
which states that the report detailing the circumstances of the excess
emissions will be used ``to assist the Technical Secretary in deciding
whether to excuse or proceed upon the violation.'' By removing this
phrase, the provision will no longer appear to provide a discretionary
exemption from SIP emission limits. In addition, Tennessee includes
other minor changes to the language in paragraph .06(2) to clarify the
requirements and to replace the term ``Technical Secretary'' with
``Technical Secretary or the Technical Secretary's representative.''
    Next, regarding former paragraph .07(3), renumbered in the January
20, 2023, supplemental SIP revision as 1200-3-20-.06(4), Tennessee
requests removal of the excusal language in this paragraph which states
that failure to submit the report required by paragraph .06(3) within
the 20-day period following a notice of violation precludes the
admissibility of the information ``as an excuse for malfunctions,
startups, and shutdowns in causing the excessive emissions'' and
replacement with ``for determination of potential enforcement action.''
EPA notes that the term ``potential enforcement action'' in this
provision refers specifically to what is considered in Tennessee's
determination of a state enforcement action.
    The revisions to paragraphs .06(2) and .06(4), as renumbered from
.07(1) and .07(3), remove the ambiguous language that EPA SIP-called as
functionally an impermissible discretionary exemption. Therefore, TDEC
has addressed the specific deficiencies that EPA identified in the 2015
SSM SIP Action with respect to Chapter 1200-3-20.
    In the November 19, 2016, SIP revision to paragraph .06(6),
Tennessee adds, ``No emission during periods of malfunction, startup,
or shutdown that is in excess of the standards in Division 1200-03 or
any permit issued thereto shall be allowed which can be proved to cause
or contribute to any violations of the Ambient Air Quality Standards
contained in Chapter 1200-03-03 or the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.'' As revised, this paragraph simply notes that excess
emissions during periods of SSM which are known to cause or contribute
to violations of ambient air quality standards are not allowed. EPA
notes that, while this provision does not convey an inaccurate concept,
the SIP must specify emission limitations (which must be continuous) to
provide for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and not merely
general prohibitions against emissions that would violate the NAAQS.
Any excess emissions that would violate an applicable SIP emission
limit are not allowed, regardless of whether they can be proved to
cause or contribute to violations of any ambient air quality standards,
and regardless of whether they occur during periods of SSM. With
Tennessee's November 19, 2016, changes to Chapter 1200-3-20, there are
no specific exemptions from applicable SIP emission limits in this
Chapter.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As identified in Section II.A of this NPRM, EPA is
proposing to disapprove the revision to Chapter 1200-3-5, which
still includes an exemption from applicable SIP visible emissions
requirements during periods of startup and shutdown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons described in this Section II.B.4, EPA is proposing
to partially approve and partially disapprove Tennessee's January 20,
2023, and November 19, 2016, SIP revisions to Rule 1200-3-20-.07, as
renumbered to 1200-3-20-.06, which were submitted for incorporation
into the SIP. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's SIP
revision with respect to Rule 1200-3-20-.06(2), (3), (4), and (6), and
EPA is proposing to disapprove the revision with respect to Rule 1200-
3-20-.06(1) and (5).
5. New Rule 1200-3-20-.07, ``Special Reports Required''; New Rule 1200-
3-20-.08, ``Rights Reserved''; and New Rule 1200-3-20-.09, ``Additional
Sources Covered''
    Approving Tennessee's request to remove 1200-3-20-.06, ``Scheduled
Maintenance,'' from the Tennessee SIP would necessitate the renumbering
of Rules 1200-3-20-.08, 1200-3-20-.09, and 1200-3-20-.10 in the
Tennessee SIP to Rules 1200-3-20-.07, 1200-3-20-.08, and 1200-3-20-.09,
respectively. Additionally, Rule 1200-3-20-.09, as renumbered from
1200-3-20-.10, includes other minor edits to assign a number to the
provision included as paragraph .09(1) and to include a parenthetical
around existing text in this provision. EPA is proposing to approve
these revisions.

III. Proposed Actions

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Based on
the analysis in Section II of this NPRM, EPA is proposing to partially
approve and partially disapprove revisions to Chapters 1200-3-5 and
1200-3-20 of the Tennessee SIP, as submitted on November 19, 2016, and
supplemented on January 20, 2023. Specifically, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the changes to Rule 1200-3-5-.02, ``Exceptions,'' and Rule
1200-3-20-.06, ``Report Required Upon the Issuance of Notice of
Violation,'' paragraph (1), renumbered from 1200-3-20-.07; and
proposing to approve the changes to Rule 1200-3-20-.01, ``Purpose'';
Rule 1200-3-20-.02, ``Reasonable Measured Required''; Rule 1200-3-
20-.06, ``Report Required Upon the Issuance of Notice of Violation,''
renumbered from 1200-3-20-.07, except for 1200-3-20-.06(1) and 1200-3-
20-.06(5); Rule 1200-3-20-.07, ``Special Reports Required,'' renumbered
from 1200-3-20-.08; Rule 1200-3-20-.08, ``Rights Reserved,'' renumbered
from 1200-3-20-.09; and Rule 1200-3-20-.09, ``Additional Source
Covered,'' renumbered from 1200-3-20-.10. EPA is also proposing to
approve the removal of Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Scheduled Maintenance.''
    EPA is further proposing to find that these SIP revisions only
partially correct the deficiencies that were identified in the June 12,
2015, SIP SSM SIP Action. If the Agency finalizes this partial
disapproval, CAA section 110(c) would require EPA to promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) within 24 months after the effective
date of the partial disapproval, unless EPA first approves a SIP
revision that corrects the deficiencies identified in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action or the deficiencies identified in Section II of this NPRM within
such time. In addition, final partial disapproval would trigger
mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the
State submits, and EPA approves, a SIP revision that corrects the
identified deficiencies

within 18 months of the effective date of the final partial disapproval
action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would be
triggered 18 months after the effective date of a final disapproval,
and the highway funding sanction in CAA section 179(b)(1) would be
triggered 24 months after the effective date of a final disapproval.
Although the sanctions clock would begin to run from the effective
date of a final disapproval, mandatory sanctions under CAA section
179 generally apply only in designated nonattainment areas. This
includes areas designated as nonattainment after the effective date
of a final disapproval. As discussed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA
will evaluate the geographic scope of potential sanctions at the
time it makes a determination that the air agency has failed to make
a complete SIP submission in response to the 2015 SIP call, or at
the time it disapproves such a SIP submission. The appropriate
geographic scope for sanctions may vary depending upon the SIP
provisions at issue. See 80 FR 33839, 33930.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action nor soliciting comment
on the rationale for issuing the 2015 SIP call to Tennessee. EPA is
taking comment on whether the proposed revisions to the Tennessee SIP
are consistent with CAA requirements and whether these changes remedy
the substantial inadequacies in the specific Tennessee SIP provisions
identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. EPA is also soliciting public
comments on the proposed partial disapproval, as explained herein.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I
through III of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference into the Tennessee SIP Rules 1200-3-20-.01, ``Purpose,''
State effective on September 26, 2016; 1200-3-20-.02, ``Reasonable
Measured Required,'' State effective on November 11, 1997; \15\ 1200-3-
20-.06, ``Report Required Upon The Issuance of a Notice of Violation,''
State effective on November 16, 2016, except for 1200-3-20-.06(1) and
1200-3-20-.06(5); 16 17  1200-3-20-.07, ``Special Reports
Required,'' State effective on September 26, 1994; \18\ 1200-3-20-.08,
``Rights Reserved,'' State effective on September 26, 1994; \19\ and
1200-3-20-.09, ``Additional Sources Covered,'' State effective on
September 26, 1994.\20\ Also in this document, EPA is proposing to
remove Rule 1200-3-20-.06, ``Scheduled Maintenance,'' \21\ which is
incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR
part 51. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials
generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The effective date of the change to Rule 1200-3-20-.02,
``Reasonable Measures Required,'' is September 26, 1994. However,
for purposes of the state effective date included at 40 CFR
52.570(c), that change to Tennessee's rule is captured and
superseded by changes which were state effective on November 11,
1997, and which EPA previously approved on April 7, 2017. See 82 FR
16927.
    \16\ As explained in Section II.B of this NPRM, with the removal
of 1200-3-20-.06, 1200-3-20-.07 is being renumbered to 1200-3-
20-.06.
    \17\ EPA is not proposing to incorporate into the Tennessee SIP
the following elements of Rule 1200-03-20-.06: 1200-03-20-.06(1) and
1200-03-20-.06(5). If EPA finalizes this proposed action, the Agency
will update the SIP table at 40 CFR 52.2220(c) to reflect these
exceptions.
    \18\ As explained in Section II.B of this NPRM, with the removal
of 1200-3-20-.06, 1200-3-20-.08 is being renumbered to 1200-3-
20-.07.
    \19\ As explained in Section II.B of this NPRM, with the removal
of 1200-3-20-.06, 1200-3-20-.09 is being renumbered to 1200-3-
20-.08.
    \20\ As explained in Section II.B of this NPRM, with the removal
of 1200-3-20-.06, 1200-3-20-.10 is being renumbered to 1200-3-
20-.09.
    \21\ As explained in Section II.B of this NPRM, while 1200-3-
20-.06, ``Scheduled Maintenance,'' is proposed for removal from the
SIP, other rules codified as 1200-3-20-.07 through .10 are proposed
to be renumbered as 1200-3-20-.06 through .09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    The proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information
collection activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This action merely proposes to partially approve
and partially disapprove a SIP submission from Tennessee as meeting and
not meeting the requirements of the CAA, respectively.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    The proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified
in Executive Order 13175. The proposed action does not apply on any
Indian reservation land, any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation
areas of Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply in
this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definitions of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202
of the Executive Order.
    Therefore, this proposed action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it merely proposes to partially approve and partially
disapprove a state action implementing a federal standard.
    Furthermore, EPA's Policy on Children's Health does not apply to
this action. Information about the applicability of the Policy is
available under ``Children's Environmental Health'' in the
Supplementary information section of this preamble.

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

    The proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review state choices
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action partially approves and partially
disapproves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
    The air agency did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its
SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations,
and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: March 30, 2023.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2023-07107 Filed 4-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 41398]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16498]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR13-53-000]

SourceGas Distribution LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 27, 2013, SourceGas Distribution LLC
(SourceGas) filed a Rate Election and revised Statement of Operating
Conditions (SOC) pursuant to sections 284.123 and 284.224 of the
Commission's regulations, (18 CFR 284.123 and 284.224). SourceGas
proposes to revise its fuel reimbursement quantity percentage to
reflect those contained in SourceGas' transportation rate schedules
recently approved and on file with the Public Service Commission of
Wyoming. In addition, SourceGas proposes to make certain housekeeping
revisions to its SOC as more fully detailed in the filing.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 17, 2013.

    Dated: July 2, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16498 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 28871]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6443-003]

Algonquin Power Company; Abenaki Timber Corporation; Notice of
Transfer of Exemption

    1. Pursuant to section 4.106 of the Commission's regulations,\1\
Rebecca McCauley, exemptee for the Little Mac Power Project No. 6443,
originally issued November 30, 1982,\2\ has been transferred to Robert
and Kathi Meyers. The project is located on Cedar Draw Creek in Twin
Falls County, Idaho. The transfer of an exemption does not require
Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 4.106(i)(2011).
    \2\ 21 FERC ] 62,346, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less and Denying
Competing Application for Preliminary Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Robert and Kathi Meyers, located at 3291 N 3300 E, Twin Falls,
Idaho 83301 are now the exemptees of the Little Mac Power Project No.
6443.

    Dated: May 9, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11741 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41299-41300]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16519]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0572]

Regattas and Marine Parades; Great Lakes Annual Marine Events

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce various special local regulations
for annual regattas and marine parades in the Captain of the Port
Detroit zone from 9:00 a.m. on June 21, 2013 through 7:00 p.m. on July
28, 2013. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of
life on the navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and
immediately after regattas or marine parades. Enforcement of these
special local regulations rule will establish restrictions upon, and
control movement of, vessels in specified areas immediately prior to,
during, and immediately after regattas or marine parades. During the
enforcement periods, no person or vessel may enter the regulated areas
without permission of the Captain of the Port.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100 .914, .915, .918, and .919 will be
enforced at various times between June 21, 2013 and July 28, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email LT Adrian Palomeque, Prevention Department, Sector
Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the following
special local regulations in 33 CFR 100 at the following dates and
times:
    (1) Sec. 100.914 Trenton Rotary Roar on the River, Trenton, MI.
    This special local regulation will be enforced from 12:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. on July 19, 2013 and from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on July 20
and 21, 2013.
    (2) Sec. 100.915 St. Clair River Classic Offshore Race, St. Clair,
MI.
    This special local regulation will be enforced from 10:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. on July 26, 27 and 28, 2013.
    (3) Sec. 100.918 Detroit APBA Gold Cup, Detroit MI.
    This special local regulation will be enforced from 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m. on July 12, 13 and 14, 2013.
    (4) Sec. 100.919 International Bay City River Roar, Bay City, MI.
    This special local regulation will be enforced from 9:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. on June 21, 22, and 23, 2013. In the case of inclement
weather on June 23, 2013, this special local regulation will also be
enforced from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on June 24, 2013.

Regulations

    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 100.901,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these regulated areas is
prohibited

unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit, or his designated
on-scene representative.
    (2) These regulated areas are closed to all vessel traffic, except
as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``designated on-scene representative'' of the Captain of
the Port is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
The designated on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port will
be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The
Captain of the Port or his designated on scene representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
regulated area shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated on-scene representative to obtain permission.
    (5) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the
regulated area must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port or his designated on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 20, 2013.
J.E. Ogden,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2013-16519 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Predictability--In developing vehicles and ADS,
manufacturers should be able to anticipate what types of performance
outcomes they will need to make to demonstrate the safety of their
products so that they can design their products accordingly.
     Transparency--To build public confidence and acceptance,
the methods used by manufacturers to demonstrate the safety of their
products should be made known and explained to the public.
     Efficiency--Given that there is neither enough time nor
resources for the Agency to develop physical test procedures for all
conceivable driving scenarios, an effort should be made to determine
which physical tests have the greatest likelihood to minimize safety
risk in an effective manner.
     Equity--All manufacturers should be treated fairly and
equally in the Agency's assessing of the sufficiency of their safety
showings. To that end, the mechanism(s) chosen by the Agency should
provide some means to validate that each manufacturer's demonstration
of safety meets or exceeds a common level of rigor and
comprehensiveness and that each vehicle meets or exceeds a common
minimum level of safety.
     Consistent with Market-Based Innovation--To ensure that
innovation is recognized and valued, governmental actions should be
consistent with market-based innovation, and ensure the Agency's
actions facilitate and do not unnecessarily inhibit innovation to the
extent possible.
     Resource Requirements--Return (measured in added safety)
on investment (e.g., efficient use of available resources) is
especially important in choosing mechanisms and in deciding which of
the core elements of ADS safety performance the Agency should
prioritize in exercising its safety oversight responsibilities.

V. Questions and Requests

A. Questions About a Safety Framework

     Question 1. Describe your conception of a Federal safety
framework for ADS that encompasses the process and engineering measures
described in this document and explain your rationale for its design.
     Question 2. In consideration of optimum use of NHTSA's
resources, on which aspects of a manufacturer's comprehensive
demonstration of the safety of its ADS should the Agency place a
priority and focus its monitoring and safety oversight efforts and why?
     Question 3. How would your conception of such a framework
ensure that manufacturers assess and assure each core element of safety
effectively?
     Question 4. How would your framework assist NHTSA in
engaging with ADS development in a manner that helps address safety,
but without unnecessarily hampering innovation?
     Question 5. How could the Agency best assess whether each
manufacturer had adequately demonstrated the extent of its ADS' ability
to meet each prioritized element of safety?
     Question 6. Do you agree or disagree with the core
elements (i.e., ``sensing,'' ``perception,'' ``planning'' and
``control'') described in this document? Please explain why.
     Question 7. Can you suggest any other core element(s) that
NHTSA should consider in developing a safety framework for ADS? Please
provide the basis of your suggestion.
     Question 8. At this early point in the development of ADS,
how should NHTSA determine whether regulation is actually needed versus
theoretically desirable? Can it be done effectively at this early stage
and would it yield a safety outcome outweighing the associated risk of
delaying or distorting paths of technological development in ways that
might result in forgone safety benefits and/or increased costs?
     Question 9. If NHTSA were to develop standards before an
ADS-equipped vehicle or an ADS that the Agency could test is widely
available, how could NHTSA validate the appropriateness of its
standards? How would such a standard impact future ADS development and
design? How would such standards be consistent with NHTSA's legal
obligations?
     Question 10. Which safety standards would be considered
the most

effective as improving safety and consumer confidence and should
therefore be given priority over other possible standards? What about
other administrative mechanisms available to NHTSA?
     Question 11. What rule-based and statistical methodologies
are best suited for assessing the extent to which an ADS meets the core
functions of ADS safety performance? Please explain the basis for your
answers. Rule-based assessment involves the definition of a
comprehensive set of rules that define precisely what it means to
function safely, and which vehicles can be empirically tested against.
Statistical approaches track the performance of vehicles over millions
of miles of real-world operation and calculate their probability of
safe operation as an extrapolation of their observed frequency of
safety violations. If there are other types of methodologies that would
be suitable, please identify and discuss them. Please explain the basis
for your answers.
     Question 12. What types and quanta of evidence would be
necessary for reliable demonstrations of the level of performance
achieved for the core elements of ADS safety performance?
     Question 13. What types and amount of argumentation would
be necessary for reliable and persuasive demonstrations of the level of
performance achieved for the core functions of ADS safety performance?

B. Question About NHTSA Research

     Question 14. What additional research would best support
the creation of a safety framework? In what sequence should the
additional research be conducted and why? What tools are necessary to
perform such research?

C. Questions About Administrative Mechanisms

     Question 15. Discuss the administrative mechanisms
described in this document in terms of how well they meet the selection
criteria in this document.
     Question 16. Of the administrative mechanisms described in
this document, which single mechanism or combination of mechanisms
would best enable the Agency to carry out its safety mission, and why?
If you believe that any of the mechanisms described in this document
should not be considered, please explain why.
     Question 17. Which mechanisms could be implemented in the
near term or are the easiest and quickest to implement, and why?
     Question 18. Which mechanisms might not be implementable
until the mid or long term but might be a logical next step to those
mechanisms that could be implemented in the near term, and why?
     Question 19. What additional mechanisms should be
considered, and why?
     Question 20. What are the pros and cons of incorporating
the elements of the framework in new FMVSS or alternative compliance
pathways?
     Question 21. Should NHTSA consider an alternative
regulatory path, with a parallel path for compliance verification
testing, that could allow for flexible demonstrations of competence
with respect to the core functions of ADS safety performance? If so,
what are the pros and cons of such alternative regulatory path? What
are the pros and cons of an alternative pathway that would allow a
vehicle to comply with either applicable FMVSS or with novel
demonstrations, or a combination of both, as is appropriate for the
vehicle design and its intended operation? Under what authority could
such an approach be developed?

D. Questions About Statutory Authority

     Question 22. Discuss how each element of the framework
would interact with NHTSA's rulemaking, enforcement, and other
authority under the Vehicle Safety Act.
     Question 23. Discuss how each element of the framework
would interact with Department of Transportation Rules concerning
rulemaking, enforcement, and guidance.
     Question 25. If you believe that any of the administrative
mechanisms described in this document falls outside the Agency's
existing rulemaking or enforcement authority under the Vehicle Safety
Act or Department of Transportation regulations, please explain the
reasons for that belief.
     Question 24. If your comment supports the Agency taking
actions that you believe may fall outside its existing rulemaking or
enforcement authority, please explain your reasons for that belief and
describe what additional authority might be needed.

VI. Preparation and Submission of Written Comments

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are filed in the correct docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments.
    Please submit one copy (two copies if submitting by mail or hand
delivery) of your comments, including the attachments, to the docket
following the instructions given above under ADDRESSES. Please note, if
you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we
ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical Character
Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy
certain portions of your submissions.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you must submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the
address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, you may submit a copy (two copies if submitting by
mail or hand delivery) from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to the docket by one of the methods
given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing
information claimed to be confidential business information, you should
include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in
NHTSA's confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

Will NHTSA consider late comments?

    NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of
business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To
the extent possible, NHTSA will also consider comments received after
that date.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received at the address given above under
ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same
location. You may also read the comments on the internet, identified by
the docket number at the heading of this document, at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please note that, even after the comment closing date, NHTSA will
continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
NHTSA recommends that you periodically check the docket for new
material.

VII. Regulatory Notices

    This action has been determined to be significant under Executive
Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order

13563, and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. It has been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) require agencies to
regulate in the ``most cost-effective manner,'' to make a ``reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs,'' and to develop regulations that ``impose the least burden on
society.'' In addition, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require
agencies to provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation.
Accordingly, we have asked commenters to answer a variety of questions
to elicit practical information about alternative approaches and
relevant technical data. These comments will help the Department
evaluate whether a proposed rulemaking is needed and appropriate. This
action is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017) because it is an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq., 49 U.S.C. 30182.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.5.
James C. Owens,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-25930 Filed 12-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 113 (Thursday, June 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35649-35650]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12640]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-477-000]

Spire Storage West, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on June 4, 2020, Spire Storage West, LLC (Spire
Storage), 3773 Richmond Avenue, Suite 300, Houston, TX 77046, filed in
the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to
Sec. Sec.  157.205 and 157.213(b) of the Commission's regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Spire Storage's blanket certificate
issued in Docket No. CP11-24-000, for authorization to install one
compressor unit and related equipment; relocate one natural gas liquids
tank, two condensate tanks, and NGL and condensate truck load-out
facilities and to replace two existing fuel supply tanks. The project,
referred to as the Compression at Clear Creek Project, is located
adjacent to Spire Storage's existing central gas handling facility at
its Clear Creek Storage Field in Uinta County, Wyoming. Details of
Spire Storage's Compression at Clear Creek Project is more fully set
forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection. In addition to publishing the full text of this
document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page
(http://ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be
directed to Sean P. Jamieson, General Counsel, Spire Storage West LLC,
3773 Richmond Avenue, Suite 300, Houston, TX 77046, phone: (346) 308-
7555 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Damien R. Lyster, Vinson
& Elkins LLP, 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500, Houston, TX 77002, phone:
713-758-2025 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene, or
the Commission's staff may, pursuant to Sec.  157.205 of the
Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed
therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized
effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is
filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for
filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an
application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to Sec.  157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
website (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Dated: June 5, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12640 Filed 6-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


*  8-hour average observed and predicted O3, May 15 - Sep 29, 2002
*  MANE-VU BaseB1 2002 run
*  236 sites with data for 2002 -> 208 EPA/AQS, 22 CASTNet,
   6 "special" (4 UNH/AIRMAP, Harvard Forest, Pinnacle State Park)
*  Entire OTR plus all of VA
*  EPA/AQS data are separated by state
*  FORMAT:  site ID, day, time, observed, predicted
*  Site listing with lat/lon and i/j cells:

EPA/AQS
090010017.1 41.0036  -73.5853 140 105
090011123.1 41.4014  -73.4447 140 108
090013007.1 41.1519  -73.1036 142 107
090019003.1 41.1189  -73.3369 141 106
090031003.1 41.7844  -72.6297 144 113
090050005.1 41.8200  -73.2956 140 112
090070007.1 41.5519  -72.6308 145 111
090093002.1 41.2583  -72.5506 146 109
090099005.1 41.3411  -72.9214 143 109
090110008.1 41.3153  -72.0631 149 110
090131001.1 41.9756  -72.3867 145 115
100010002.1 38.9847  -75.5556 131  83
100031003.1 39.7611  -75.4919 129  90
100031007.1 39.5511  -75.7308 128  88
100031010.1 39.8172  -75.5639 129  91
100031013.1 39.7739  -75.4964 129  90
100051002.1 38.6444  -75.6131 131  80
100051003.1 38.7792  -75.1631 134  82
110010025.1 38.9753  -77.0228 120  81
110010041.1 38.8972  -76.9528 121  80
110010043.1 38.9189  -77.0125 121  80
230052003.1 43.5608  -70.2078 155 134
230090102.1 44.3517  -68.2272 166 145
230090103.1 44.3769  -68.2608 165 145
230090301.1 44.4228  -68.8056 162 144
230112005.1 44.2303  -69.7856 156 140
230130004.2 43.9175  -69.2619 160 139
230173001.1 44.2222  -70.8556 149 138
230194008.1 44.7349  -68.6785 162 147
230230004.1 43.7953  -69.7317 158 137
230310038.1 43.6592  -70.6200 152 134
230312002.1 43.3431  -70.4714 154 131
230313002.1 43.0833  -70.7500 153 128
239010001.1 43.6447  -70.2647 155 134
240030014.1 38.9025  -76.6531 123  81
240030019.1 39.1011  -76.7294 122  82
240051007.1 39.4608  -76.6311 122  86
240053001.1 39.3108  -76.4744 124  85
240130001.1 39.4442  -77.0417 119  85
240150003.1 39.7011  -75.8600 127  89
240170010.1 38.5042  -76.8119 123  77
240210037.1 39.4081  -77.3758 117  84
240251001.1 39.4100  -76.2967 125  86
240259001.1 39.5633  -76.2039 125  87
240290002.1 39.3050  -75.7973 128  86
240313001.1 39.1144  -77.1069 120  82
240330002.1 39.0200  -76.8278 122  81
240338003.1 38.8119  -76.7442 123  80
240430009.1 39.5656  -77.7219 114  85
245100053.1 39.2889  -76.5544 123  84
250010002.1 41.9758  -70.0247 161 120
250034002.1 42.6367  -73.1686 139 120
250051002.1 41.6353  -70.8814 156 115
250090005.1 42.7094  -71.1464 152 124
250092006.1 42.4744  -70.9725 153 123
250094004.1 42.7894  -70.8092 154 126
250130003.1 42.0617  -72.6780 143 116
250130008.1 42.1942  -72.5561 144 117
250150103.1 42.4003  -72.5236 143 119
250154002.1 42.2983  -72.3347 145 118
250171102.1 42.4136  -71.4858 150 121
250213003.1 42.2122  -71.1147 153 120
250250041.1 42.3174  -70.9688 154 121
250250042.1 42.3294  -71.0828 153 121
250270015.1 42.2742  -71.8761 148 119
330012004.1 43.5653  -71.4958 147 131
330031002.1 43.9794  -71.1342 148 136
330050007.1 42.9306  -72.2778 144 124
330074001.1 44.2783  -71.3025 146 138
330074002.1 44.2906  -71.2250 147 138
330074003.1 45.0511  -71.3919 144 145
330090008.1 44.0839  -72.0100 142 135
330110020.1 43.0006  -71.4681 149 126
330111010.1 42.7019  -71.4450 150 124
330115001.1 42.8619  -71.8786 146 124
330130007.1 43.2069  -71.5342 148 128
330150012.1 43.0022  -70.7458 153 128
330150013.1 43.0000  -71.2000 150 127
330150015.1 43.0825  -70.7619 153 128
330173002.1 43.2833  -70.9294 151 130
330190003.1 43.3644  -72.3383 142 128
340010005.1 39.5250  -74.4597 137  90
340030005.1 40.9000  -74.0300 137 103
340070003.1 39.9228  -75.0972 132  92
340071001.1 39.6739  -74.8569 134  91
340110007.1 39.4222  -75.0258 133  88
340130016.1 40.7222  -74.1469 136 101
340150002.1 39.7992  -75.2183 131  91
340170006.1 40.6708  -74.1258 137 101
340190001.1 40.5167  -74.8100 132  98
340210005.1 40.2828  -74.7467 133  96
340230011.1 40.4733  -74.4256 135  98
340250005.1 40.1881  -74.0061 139  97
340273001.1 40.7872  -74.6775 133 101
340290006.1 40.0653  -74.4456 136  95
340315001.1 41.0522  -74.2581 135 104
360010012.1 42.6807  -73.7569 135 119
360050083.1 40.8659  -73.8808 138 103
360050110.1 40.8162  -73.9021 138 102
360130006.1 42.4995  -79.3189  98 109
360130011.1 42.2908  -79.6025  97 107
360150003.1 42.1110  -76.8025 116 109
360270007.1 41.7818  -73.7426 137 111
360290002.1 42.9930  -78.7714 101 114
360310002.1 44.3661  -73.9031 130 134
360310003.1 44.3931  -73.8589 130 134
360410005.1 43.4496  -74.5163 128 125
360430005.1 43.6858  -74.9854 124 126
360450002.1 44.0875  -75.9732 117 128
360530006.1 42.7305  -75.7844 121 116
360551004.1 43.1655  -77.5548 109 118
360631006.1 43.2239  -78.4785 102 117
360650004.2 43.3000  -75.7192 120 122
360671015.1 43.0524  -76.0592 119 119
360715001.1 41.5240  -74.2153 134 108
360790005.1 41.4415  -73.7076 138 108
360810098.1 40.7842  -73.8476 138 102
360810124.1 40.7362  -73.8232 139 102
360830004.1 42.7819  -73.4636 136 121
360850067.1 40.5973  -74.1262 137 100
360910004.1 43.0119  -73.6489 134 122
360930003.1 42.7996  -73.9402 133 120
361030002.1 40.7465  -73.4189 141 103
361030004.1 40.9612  -72.7127 146 106
361030009.2 40.8275  -73.0569 144 104
361111005.1 42.1438  -74.4941 131 113
361173001.1 43.2309  -77.1738 111 119
361192004.1 41.0520  -73.7640 138 105
420010002.1 39.9300  -77.2500 117  89
420030008.1 40.4656  -79.9611  97  90
420030010.1 40.4456  -80.0164  97  90
420030067.1 40.3819  -80.1855  96  89
420031005.1 40.6172  -79.7322  99  92
420050001.1 40.8142  -79.5650  99  94
420070002.1 40.5625  -80.5042  93  90
420070005.1 40.6847  -80.3597  94  91
420070014.1 40.7478  -80.3167  94  92
420110001.1 40.5111  -75.7861 126  96
420110009.1 40.3203  -75.9267 125  95
420130801.1 40.5353  -78.3708 108  93
420170012.1 40.1072  -74.8822 133  94
420210011.1 40.3097  -78.9150 105  90
420270100.1 40.8114  -77.8770 111  96
420274000.1 40.7746  -77.6221 113  96
420290050.1 39.9357  -75.6043 128  92
420290100.1 39.8344  -75.7686 127  90
420334000.1 41.1175  -78.5262 106  98
420430401.1 40.2450  -76.8447 119  92
420431100.1 40.2722  -76.6814 120  93
420450002.1 39.8356  -75.3725 130  91
420490003.1 42.1418  -80.0386  94 105
420550001.1 39.9611  -77.4756 115  89
420590002.1 39.8162  -80.2849  96  84
420690101.1 41.4791  -75.5782 125 105
420692006.1 41.4428  -75.6230 125 105
420710007.1 40.0467  -76.2833 123  92
420730015.1 40.9958  -80.3467  94  94
420770004.1 40.6119  -75.4325 128  98
420791100.1 41.2092  -76.0033 123 102
420791101.1 41.2656  -75.8464 124 103
420810100.1 41.2508  -76.9238 117 101
420814000.1 41.3341  -77.4491 113 101
420850100.1 41.2150  -80.4850  92  96
420910013.1 40.1122  -75.3092 130  94
420950025.1 40.6281  -75.3411 129  98
420958000.1 40.6922  -75.2372 129  99
420990301.1 40.4569  -77.1656 116  94
421010004.1 40.0089  -75.0978 132  93
421010014.1 40.0500  -75.2405 131  93
421010024.1 40.0764  -75.0119 132  94
421010136.1 39.9275  -75.2228 131  92
421174000.1 41.6447  -76.9392 116 105
421250005.1 40.1467  -79.9022  98  87
421250200.1 40.1706  -80.2614  96  87
421255001.1 40.4453  -80.4208  94  89
421290006.1 40.4281  -79.6930  99  90
421290008.1 40.3047  -79.5057 101  89
421330008.1 39.9653  -76.6994 121  90
440030002.1 41.6150  -71.7197 151 113
440071010.1 41.8403  -71.3617 152 116
440090007.1 41.4917  -71.4278 153 113
500030004.1 42.8975  -73.2508 137 122
500070007.1 44.5275  -72.8744 136 137
510130020.1 38.8575  -77.0592 120  80
510330001.1 38.2031  -77.3772 119  73
510360002.1 37.3433  -77.2600 122  66
510410004.1 37.3589  -77.5936 120  65
510590005.1 38.8939  -77.4653 118  79
510590018.1 38.7425  -77.0775 121  79
510590030.1 38.7728  -77.1056 120  79
510591005.1 38.8375  -77.1632 120  79
510595001.1 38.9319  -77.1989 119  80
510610002.1 38.4750  -77.7678 116  75
510690010.1 39.2828  -78.0814 112  82
510850003.1 37.6061  -77.2188 122  68
510870014.1 37.5583  -77.4003 121  67
511071005.1 39.0244  -77.4900 117  80
511130003.1 38.5219  -78.4361 111  75
511390004.1 38.6633  -78.5047 111  76
511530009.1 38.8553  -77.6356 116  79
511611004.1 37.2856  -79.8842 103  61
511630003.1 37.6261  -79.5130 105  65
511790001.1 38.4831  -77.3703 119  76
511970002.1 36.8931  -81.2550  94  56
515100009.1 38.8108  -77.0447 121  79
516500004.2 37.0033  -76.3992 129  64
518000004.1 36.9033  -76.4386 129  63
518000005.1 36.6675  -76.7314 127  60

CASTNet
cast.ABT147 41.8402  -72.0100 148 115
cast.ACA416 44.3770  -68.2610 165 145
cast.ARE128 39.9231  -77.3078 117  89
cast.ASH135 46.6041  -68.4135 158 164
cast.BEL116 39.0284  -76.8172 122  82
cast.BWR139 38.4450  -76.1114 128  77
cast.CDR119 38.8795  -80.8477  94  74
cast.CAT175 41.9422  -74.5520 131 111
cast.CTH110 42.4006  -76.6538 116 112
cast.HOW132 45.2158  -68.7082 160 151
cast.HWF187 43.9731  -74.2232 129 130
cast.KEF112 41.5980  -78.7674 103 102
cast.LRL117 39.9878  -79.2515 103  87
cast.LYE145 43.0511  -73.0614 138 124
cast.MKG113 41.4271  -80.1451  94  98
cast.PAR107 39.0904  -79.6617 102  78
cast.PED108 37.1655  -78.3069 115  62
cast.PSU106 40.7208  -77.9319 111  95
cast.SHN418 38.5234  -78.4364 111  75
cast.VPI120 37.3297  -80.5578  98  61
cast.WSP144 40.3125  -74.8729 132  96
cast.WST109 43.9450  -71.7008 145 134

SPECIAL
airmap_cs.1 43.7310  -71.3299 148 133
airmap_is.1 42.9871  -69.3347 163 130
airmap_mw.1 44.2709  -71.3035 146 138
airmap_tf.1 43.1088  -70.9483 152 128
harvard_f.1 42.5378  -72.1715 145 121
pinnacle0.1 42.0900  -77.2100 113 108


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50786-50787]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16375]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0063; FRL-10012-86-Region 4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Fairfax St. Wood Treaters
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 announces
the deletion of the Fairfax St. Wood Treaters Superfund Site (Site)
located in Jacksonville, Florida, from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP), have determined that all appropriate response
actions under CERCLA, have been completed. However, this deletion does
not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This action is effective August 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
    Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0063. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form.
    The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional
Records Centers for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19. In addition, many site information repositories are closed
and information in these repositories, including the deletion docket,
has not been updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further
information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leigh Lattimore, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW--MS9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Fairfax St. Wood Treaters Superfund Site, Jacksonville, Florida. A
Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site was published in the Federal
Register (85 FR 36368 citation) on June 16, 2020.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
July 16, 2020. One public comment was

received. The comment received was not related to the deletion rule-
making. A responsiveness summary was prepared and placed in the docket,
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0063, on https://www.regulations.gov.
    The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to
present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial
action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted
from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without
application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the
NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event
that future conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 23, 2020.
Mary Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For reasons set out in the Preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

0
1. The authority citation for Part 300 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended by removing ``FL'',
``Fairfax St. Wood Treaters'', ``Jacksonville''.

[FR Doc. 2020-16375 Filed 8-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 86)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20868]
[DOCID:fr06my09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1168; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-19]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Clewiston, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This action confirms the effective date of a direct final rule
that establishes Class E Airspace at Clewiston, FL needed to support
new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) developed for Airglades Airport.
As a result, controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above
Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain the SIAP and for Instrument
Flight Rule (IFR) operations changing the operating status of the
airport from Visual flight Rules (VFR) to include IFR operations
concurrent with the publication of the SIAP.

DATES: Effective Dates: 0901 UTC, May 6, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Confirmation of Effective Date

    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for
comments in the Federal Register on December 15, 2008 (73 FR 75939),
Docket No. FAA-2008-1168; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASO-19. The FAA uses
the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule
where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment.
This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were
anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written
notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received
within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on
March 12, 2009. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice
confirms that effective date.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 22, 2009.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. E9-10396 Filed 5-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P