[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28934-28942]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12357]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0298; FRL-9308-5]

Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of State Implementation
Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed Rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of
Montana to demonstrate that the SIP meets the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that each state, after a new or
revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIPs to ensure that they
meet the requirements of the ``infrastructure elements'' of section
110(a)(2). The State of Montana submitted two certifications of their
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, dated November 28, 2007,
which was determined to be complete on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205),
and December 22, 2009.
    EPA does not propose to act on the State's November 28, 2007 and
December 22, 2009, submissions to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, relating to interstate transport of air
pollution, for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA approved the State's
interstate transport SIP submission on February 26, 2008 (73 FR 10150).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2010-0298, by one of the following methods:

     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2010-0298. 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 whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
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 http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to section I, General Information, of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    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
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What infrastructure elements are required under sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
IV. How did the State of Montana address the infrastructure elements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on 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:
    Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register, date, and page number);
    Follow directions and organize your comments;
    Explain why you agree or disagree;
    Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested
changes;
    Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/
or data that you used;
    If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;
    Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives;
    Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats; and,
    Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was
changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). By
statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of
a new or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) provides basic
requirements for SIPs, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and
modeling, to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These
requirements are set out in several ``infrastructure elements,'' listed
in section 110(a)(2).
    Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time

the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS
affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP
submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's
existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
states typically have met the basic program elements required in
section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with
previous NAAQS. In a guidance issued on October 2, 2007, EPA noted
that, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the section 110(a)(2)
requirements, states need only to certify that fact via a letter to
EPA.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality
Policy Division, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (Oct. 2, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rule entitled,
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans
for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS'' (73 FR 16205). In the rule, EPA made a
finding for each state that it had submitted or had failed to submit a
complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In
particular, EPA found that the State of Montana had submitted a
complete SIP to meet these requirements.

III. What infrastructure elements are required under sections 110(a)(1)
and (2)?

    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated.
Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or
satisfy. These infrastructure elements include requirements, such as
modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories, which are designed to
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The elements that are
the subject of this action are listed below.
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international pollution.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    A detailed discussion of each of these elements is contained in the
next section.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D
of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but
rather are due at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements
are due under section 172. The two elements are: (i) section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as
``nonattainment new source review (NSR)'') required under part D, and
(ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address
infrastructure elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of
section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I).
    This action also does not address the ``interstate transport''
requirements of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In a separate action, EPA
approved the State's submission to meet the requirements of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (73 FR 10150).

IV. How did the State of Montana address the infrastructure elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives
such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: Enforceable control
measures exist to protect the ozone NAAQS throughout the State. Montana
implements a stationary source permit program which requires subject
sources to demonstrate emissions will not cause or contribute to a
violation of any NAAQS (Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM)
17.8.749). Subject sources are further required to utilize best
available control technology (BACT) when installing emission controls
(ARM 17.8.752). Montana also regulates open burning and subjects those
conducting open burning to BACT requirements as well (Title 17, Chapter
8, Subchapter 6).
    Except for specific control measures adopted in Montana Board of
Environmental Review (BER) orders, the emission limits and other air
pollution control regulations are contained in the following
subchapters of Title 17, Chapter 8, ARM: Subchapter 1--General
Provisions; Subchapter 2--Emission Standards; Subchapter 4--Stack
Heights and Dispersion Techniques; Subchapter 6--Open Burning;
Subchapter 7--Permit, Construction and Operation of Air Contaminant
Sources; Subchapter 8--Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air
Quality; Subchapter 9--Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources
or Major Modifications Locating within Nonattainment Areas; Subchapter
10--Preconstruction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources or
Major Modifications Locating within Attainment or Unclassified Areas;
Subchapter 16--Emission Control Requirements for Oil and Gas Well
Facilities Operating Prior to Issuance of a Montana Air Quality Permit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State rule(s)                       Federal action \2\                    Action reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARM 17.8.101 et seq...................  approved...........................  60 FR 3615.
ARM 17.8.301 et seq...................  approved...........................  44 FR 14036.
ARM 17.8.401 et seq...................  approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
ARM 17.8.601 et seq...................  approved...........................  61 FR 54947.
ARM 17.8.701 et seq...................  approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
ARM 17.8.801 et seq...................  approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
ARM 17.8.901 et seq...................  approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
ARM 17.8.1001 et seq..................  approved...........................  60 FR 36715.

ARM 17.8.1601 et seq..................  approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \2\ In its certification, Montana noted here and elsewhere that
EPA has subsequently approved revisions to the cited provisions and
in some instances Montana has submitted revisions to the provisions
but EPA has not yet taken action on them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. EPA analysis: Montana's SIP meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, subject to the following
clarifications. First, this infrastructure element does not require the
submittal of regulations or emission limitations developed specifically
for attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, Montana has no areas
designated as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Montana primarily
regulates emissions of ozone and ozone precursors through its SIP-
approved major and minor source permitting programs. The SIP also
contains limitations for emissions of hydrocarbons from storage and
processing of petroleum products. See ARM 17.8.324. This suffices, in
the case of Montana, to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(A) for the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
    Second, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. A number of states have such
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52
FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take action in the
future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA
encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance
provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps
to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    Finally, in this action, EPA is also not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing SIP provisions with regard to excess emissions
during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a
facility. A number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to
the CAA and existing EPA guidance \3\ and the Agency plans to address
such state regulations in the future. In the meantime, EPA encourages
any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it
as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Excess
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.'' (Sept. 20,
1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B)
requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate
devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to (i) monitor,
compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon
request, make such data available to the Administrator.
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: On an annual basis, the
Department of Environmental Quality (``Department'' or ``DEQ'')
evaluates trends in industrial and economic development, meteorology,
and population growth and makes other scientific, social, and
geographic observations regarding areas of the State which may be
adversely affected by the impact of criteria pollutants. Based on this
information, the Department identifies potential air pollution
``hotspots.'' The Department, with participation and input from local
control program staff and other interested persons, makes decisions
regarding monitor type, location, and schedules for monitoring air
quality in these hotspots. The Department makes the product of this
decision making process, the annual monitoring network plan, available
for public inspection prior to submission to EPA.
    Pursuant to its Quality Assurance Project Plans, the Department
makes arrangements to operate and maintain Federal reference monitors
and establishes Federally-approved protocols for sample collection,
handling, and analysis. Ambient air monitoring data is subject to
strict quality assurance/quality control processes. Air monitoring data
is included in the AIRS database.
    Montana has monitored the Billings area for ambient ozone levels
since June 2005. No exeedences have been recorded.
    The provisions in state law for the collection and analysis of
ambient air quality data are contained in the CAA of Montana (MT CAA),
75-2-101 et seq., MCA, and, specifically, 75-2-112, MCA, Powers and
Responsibilities of Department.
    b. EPA analysis: Montana's air monitoring programs and data systems
meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. The 2009-2010 Montana Annual Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP),
dated June 2009, was approved by EPA Region 8 on August 24, 2010.
    3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section
110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to include a program to provide for the
enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and
regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that
NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C
and D.
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: Congress directed states
to develop and implement measures to prevent significant deterioration
(PSD) of air quality pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7470, et seq. and 7501, et
seq. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.130, sources subject to the provisions of
Title 17, Chapter 8, subchapters 8, 9, and 10, ARM, regulating
construction of new or modified stationary sources consistent with PSD
and NSR requirements, shall be subject to enforcement. The Department
has the authority to issue a notice of violation, complaint regarding
the source violation, and an order to take corrective action.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State rule(s)           Federal action      Action reference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARM 17.8.130.................  Approved.......  71 FR 3770.
ARM 17.8.801 et seq..........  Approved.......  60 FR 36715.
ARM 17.8.901 et seq..........  Approved.......  60 FR 36715.
ARM 17.8.1001 et seq.........  Approved.......  60 FR 36715.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions in state law for the enforcement of emission
limitations and other control measures, means or techniques is
contained in the MT CAA, 75-2-101 et seq., MCA, and specifically, 75-2-
111, MCA, Powers of the Board and 75-2-112, MCA, Powers and
Responsibilities of Department.
    b. EPA analysis: To generally meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C), the State is required to have SIP-approved PSD,
nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to
implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As explained above, in this
action EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions, such as
the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act. In
addition, Montana has no nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
and is therefore not required at this point to have a corresponding
nonattainment NSR program. In this action, EPA is evaluating the
State's PSD program as required by part C of the Act, and the State's
minor NSR program as required by 110(a)(2)(C).
    Montana has a SIP-approved PSD program that generally meets the
requirements of part C of the Act. However, in order for the State's
SIP-approved PSD program to satisfy the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the program must properly
regulate ozone precursors. On November 29, 2005, EPA promulgated the
phase 2 implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which includes
requirements for PSD programs to treat nitrogen oxides as a precursor
for ozone (72 FR 71612). The State's approved PSD program does not
satisfy the requirements of the phase 2 implementation rule.\4\
Furthermore, the State has not submitted a revision to the program to
address this deficiency. As a result, the SIP does not satisfy, for the
1997 ozone NAAQS, the requirement of element 110(a)(2)(C) for the SIP
to include a permit program as required in part C of Title I of the
Act. EPA therefore proposes to disapprove the Montana infrastructure
SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS for this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In particular, the State's definitions of ``major stationary
source,'' ARM 17.8.801(22)(b), ``net emissions increase,'' ARM
17.8.801(24), and ``significant,'' ARM 17.8.801(27)(a), do not meet
the corresponding requirements in, respectively, 40 CFR
51.166(b)(1)(i)(c)(ii), 51.166(b)(2)(ii), and 51.166(b)(23)(i) with
regard to treating nitrogen oxides as an ozone precursor. In
addition, the definition of ``air pollutant'' used in the State's
PSD program does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.166(49)(i)(a) regarding identifying nitrogen oxides as an ozone
precursor. See 72 FR at 71699.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Turning to minor NSR, EPA is proposing to approve Montana's
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with respect to the general
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP
that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. (See ARM
Chapter 17.8, Subchapter 7.) EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove the State's existing minor NSR program itself to the extent
that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program.
A number of states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to
the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with
states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory
provisions for the program. The statutory requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing minor
NSR programs, and it may be time to revisit the regulatory requirements
for this program to give the states an appropriate level of flexibility
to design a program that meets their particular air quality concerns,
while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting
the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor sources.
    4. Interstate transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires SIPs to
contain adequate provisions prohibiting, consistent with the provisions
of this title, any source or other type of emissions activity within
the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will (I)
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, with respect to any such national
primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or (II) interfere
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation
plan for any other state under part C to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility.
    a. EPA Analysis: EPA approved the State's Interstate Transport
provisions for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS on February
26, 2008 (73 FR 10150). EPA is taking no action relevant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) in this proposal.
    5. Interstate and International transport provisions: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires that each SIP shall contain adequate
provisions insuring compliance with applicable requirements of sections
126 and 115 (relating to interstate and international pollution
abatement).
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: Although Montana
certified that its SIP met the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) generally and 110(a)(2)(D) specifically, Montana did not identify
particular provisions to meet this requirement.
    b. EPA Analysis: Section 126(a) requires notification to affected,
nearby states of major proposed new (or modified) sources. Sections
126(b) and (c) pertain to petitions by affected states to the
Administrator regarding sources violating the ``interstate transport''
provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 similarly pertains
to international transport of air pollution.
    As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Montana's SIP-approved PSD
program requires notice to states whose lands may be affected by the
emissions of sources subject to PSD. See ARM 17.8.826(2)(d). This
suffices to meet the notice requirement of section 126(a).
    Montana has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or 115(b);
therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those sections.
In summary, the SIP meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
    6. Adequate resources and authority: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires
states to provide (i) necessary assurances that the state will have
adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out
the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal or state law
from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof), (ii) requires that the
state comply with the requirements respecting state boards under
section 128, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has
relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality
for the implementation of any SIP provision, the state has
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such SIP
provision.
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: No state or Federal
provisions prohibit the implementation of any provision of the Montana
SIP. Montana devotes adequate resources to SIP development and
maintenance sufficient to ensure attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS for ozone.
    Montana receives from EPA grant monies intended to fund programs to
protect NAAQS. Montana allocates a portion of the EPA grant money to
fund SIP activities for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
Montana imposes and collects fees from permit applicants. Montana
allocates all of the permit fee revenue to activities associated with
permitting and compliance of regulated sources of air pollutants,
including criteria pollutant emissions. Montana also receives state
general funds to conduct state air

quality program activities. Montana allocates all state general funding
to non-permit air program activities including SIP programs for
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The Air Resources Management Bureau has 50 fulltime equivalent
positions with an annual budget of $6.3 million for fiscal year 2010.
The program funding is broken down as follows: $163,536 from state
general funds, $1,643,940 from Federal grants, and $4,546,047 from
stationary source fees.
    The provisions in State law providing for adequate resources are
contained in the MT CAA, 75-2-101 et seq., MCA. More specifically,
those provisions are contained in 75-2-102, MCA, Intent--Policy and
Purpose; 75-2-111, MCA, Powers of the Board and 75-2-112, MCA, Powers
and Responsibilities of Department.
    The Montana Board of Environmental Review (BER) oversees the
Montana DEQ, including actions taken by the State air program. The
composition and requirements of the BER are detailed in 2-15-3502, MCA,
2-15-121, MCA, and 2-15-124, MCA. Laws related to conflict of interest
in Montana state government are found in 2-2-201, MCA, and 2-2-202,
MCA.
    b. EPA Analysis: The provisions contained in 75-2-102, MCA, 75-2-
111, MCA, and 75-2-112, MCA, provide adequate authority for the State
of Montana and the DEQ to carry out its SIP obligations with respect to
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The State receives sections 103 and 105 grant
funds through its Performance Partnership Grant along with required
state matching funds to provide funding necessary to carry out
Montana's SIP requirements. EPA therefore proposes to approve the
Montana infrastructure SIP with regards to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    7. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F)
requires (i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of
equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners
or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such
sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of
such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to the Act, which reports shall be
available at reasonable times for public inspection.
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: Montana requires
stationary sources subject to State regulation to annually submit all
information necessary to complete a source emissions inventory.
Affected permits require emissions monitoring from stationary sources
of air pollution. Further, on an annual basis the Department compiles a
State emissions inventory of all regulated sources for the evaluation
of compliance with applicable standards and inclusion in EPA databases.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State rule(s)                         Federal action                      Action reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARM 17.8.105..........................  Approved...........................  66 FR 42427.
ARM 17.8.106..........................  Approved...........................  66 FR 42427.
ARM 17.8.505..........................  Not submitted......................  State only rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. EPA Analysis: The provisions cited by Montana (ARM 17.8.105 and
17.8.106) pertain to testing requirements and protocols. Montana also
incorporates by reference 40 CFR part 51, appendix P, regarding minimum
monitoring requirements. (See ARM 17.8.103(1)(D)). In addition, Montana
provides for monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
sources subject to minor and major source permitting. EPA therefore
proposes to approve Montana's infrastructure SIP with regards to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to
provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans
to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: On January 3, 2006, EPA
approved Montana's Emergency Episode Avoidance Plan (EEAP) in 71 FR 19.
Montana's EEAP made provision for emergency control of all criteria
pollutants. Under authority granted by section 75-2-402, MCA, Emergency
Procedures, and the Montana's EEAP, the Department may order sources of
pollution to limit or cease emissions. The Montana CAA is not subject
to approval by EPA.
    b. EPA analysis: Section 75-2-402 of the MCA provides DEQ with
general emergency authority comparable to that in section 303 of the
Act. EPA last approved revisions to the EEAP on January 3, 2006 (71 FR
19). The EEAP meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, Subpart H. The
SIP therefore meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
    9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs
provide for revision of such plan (i) from time to time as may be
necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or
secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved
or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii),
except as provided in paragraph 110(a)(3)(C), whenever the
Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the
Administrator that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the
NAAQS which it implements or to otherwise comply with any additional
requirements under this Act.
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: The Montana CAA invests
in the BER the authority to adopt, amend, and repeal rules for
administering implementing, and enforcing rules promulgated to regulate
emissions of air pollutants, including rules necessary to establish
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. The Governor submits, for
inclusion into the SIP, rules determined to be necessary to attain and
maintain the NAAQS.
    The provisions in state law providing for adoption of rules and
regulations are contained in the Montana CAA, 75-2-101 et seq., MCA.
More specifically, those provisions are contained in 75-2-102, MCA,
Intent--Policy and Purpose; 75-2-111, MCA, Powers of the Board, and 75-
2-112, MCA, Powers and Responsibilities of Department.
    b. EPA analysis: Montana's statutory provisions in the Montana CAA
at 75-2-101 et seq., give the BER sufficient authority to meet the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(H).
    10. Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revision under Part D: Section
110(a)(2)(I) requires that a SIP or SIP revision for an area designated
as a nonattainment area must meet the applicable requirements of part D
of title I of the Act (relating to nonattainment areas).
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: All control plans for
non-attainment areas in Montana are

prepared in accordance with the applicable requirements of 42 U.S.C.
7501-7505. There are no ozone nonattainment areas in Montana.
    b. EPA analysis for Section 110(a)(2)(I): As noted above, the
specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I)
are subject to the timing requirement of section 172, not the timing
requirement of section 110(a)(1). This element is therefore not
applicable to this action. EPA will take action on part D attainment
plans through a separate process.
    11. Consultation with government officials, public notification,
PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each
SIP meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title
(relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to
public notification), and part C of title I of the Act (relating to PSD
of air quality and visibility protection).
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: Montana satisfies EPA's
requirements for intergovernmental relations, see 59 FR 2988. Montana
has not changed or revoked consultation processes since that time.
Montana holds public meetings and hearings on all SIP revisions in
accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V and Montana's open meeting
laws. See 3-2-203, MCA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Montana's certification cited MCA 2-2-203, which appears to
be a typographical error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 3, 2006, EPA approved Montana's EEAP in 71 FR 19.
Montana's EEAP provides for all criteria pollutants, including ozone.
The EEAP contains provisions for disseminating information regarding an
exeedence of the NAAQS to appropriate news media, health officials, law
enforcement, and others. The Department notice includes recommendations
for actions citizens may take to reduce the impact of their activities
and reduce their exposure. Montana also complies with 40 CFR 51.930
during exceptional events.
    Congress directed states to develop and implement measures to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7471. Montana adopted permitting requirements for major sources
proposing to modify or construct; PSD rules in subchapter 8 and
nonattainment New Source Review rules in subchapter 10 of Title 17,
Chapter 8, ARM. Montana continues to implement and enforce these rules.
Montana consults with Federal Land Managers as needed and/or required.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State rule(s)                         Federal action                      Action reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARM 17.8.801 et seq...................  Approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
ARM 17.8.1001 et seq..................  Approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. EPA Analysis: The State has demonstrated that it has the
authority and rules in place to provide a process of consultation with
general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected
officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having
authority over Federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with
the requirements of CAA section 121. Furthermore, Montana's EEAP,
approved into the SIP, meets the requirements of CAA section 127.
    Turning to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP
meet the applicable requirements of part C of title I of the Act, EPA
has evaluated this requirement in the context of infrastructure element
(C) in section IV.3 above. As discussed there, EPA proposes to
disapprove Montana's infrastructure SIP for the requirement in
110(a)(2)(C) that the SIP include a permit program as required in part
C, on the basis that Montana's SIP-approved PSD program does not
properly regulate nitrogen oxides as an ozone precursor. For the same
reason, EPA proposes to disapprove Montana's infrastructure SIP with
regards to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) that the SIP meet
the applicable requirements of part C of title I the Act.
    Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the act. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we
find that there is no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under
section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.
    In conclusion, the Montana SIP meets the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with regards to sections 121 and
127 of the Act, and does not meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with regards to meeting the
applicable requirements of part C relating to PSD.
    12. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires
that each SIP provide for (i) the performance of such air quality
modeling as the Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of
predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any
air pollutant for which the Administrator has established a NAAQS, and
(ii) the submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality
modeling to the Administrator.
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: Montana requires an
applicant proposing to construct or modify a source of criteria
pollutants to demonstrate the facility can be expected to operate in
compliance with applicable law and that it will not cause or contribute
to a violation of any NAAQS. Sources subject to the provisions of Title
17, Chapter 8, Subchapters 7, 8, 9, and 10, ARM (regulating
construction of new or modified major stationary sources consistent
with PSD and New Source Review (NSR) requirements) shall demonstrate
the facility can be expected to operate in compliance with applicable
law and that it will not cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State rule(s)                         Federal action                      Action reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARM 17.8.701 et seq...................  Approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
ARM 17.8.801 et seq...................  Approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
ARM 17.8.901 et seq...................  Approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
ARM 17.8.1001 et seq..................  Approved...........................  60 FR 36715.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Absent any privacy restrictions regarding the release of
proprietary business information, all preconstruction data and analysis
regarding the results of source predictive modeling for purposes of
NAAQS compliance is public information available for anyone, including
EPA, to review upon request.
    b. EPA Analysis: Montana's SIP meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In particular, Montana's
PSD program (see ARM 17.8.821(1)) requires estimates of ambient air
concentrations to be based on the applicable air quality models, data
bases, and other requirements specified in Appendix W of 40 CFR part
51, pertaining to the Guidelines on Air Quality Models. As a result,
the SIP provides for such air quality modeling as the Administrator has
prescribed.
    13. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require
the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the
permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this
act, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing
and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the
owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable
costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any
such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated
with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded
with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee
program under title V.
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: Montana has an approved
Title V permitting program. Montana requires an applicant proposing to
construct or modify an air pollution source to pay an application fee.
See ARM 17.8.504. Pursuant to ARM 7.8.505, Montana assesses an annual
air quality operation fee against the owner or operator of any source
issued a Montana air quality permit or an operating permit or which is
registered with the Department as an oil and gas facility under ARM
17.8.1701, et seq.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State rules(s)                         Federal action                      Action reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARM 17.8.504..........................  Not Submitted......................  State only rule.
ARM 17.8.505..........................  Not submitted......................  State only rule.
ARM 17.8.1701, et seq.................  Pending............................  MT submitted 11/1/06.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. EPA Analysis: Montana's approved title V operating permit
program meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997
ozone NAAQS. As discussed in the Direct Final Rule approving the
State's title V program (65 FR 37049, June 13, 2000), the State
demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to administer the
program.
    14. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section
110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions
affected by the SIP.
    a. Montana's response to this requirement: As a matter of practice,
the Department consults with the local agencies when necessary to
implement a control plan for a nonattainment area. The Department also
meets with county air pollution control program staff and discusses
monitoring issues, including ozone, prior to making decisions regarding
monitoring needs, monitor type, locations, and monitoring schedules.
    Section 75-2-112(2)(j) of the Montana CAA requires the Department
to `` * * * advise, consult, contract, and cooperate with other
agencies of the state, local governments, industries, other states,
interstate and interlocal agencies, the United States, and any
interested persons or groups; * * * ''
    Parties affected by Department actions, including local political
subdivisions, may petition the BER for a hearing and address of their
grievances, see ARM 17.8.140, 17.8.141, and 17.8.142.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             State rule(s)                         Federal action                      Action reference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARM 17.8.140..........................  Approved...........................  66 FR 42427.
ARM 17.8.141..........................  Approved...........................  66 FR 42427.
ARM 17.8.142..........................  Approved...........................  66 FR 42427.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. EPA Analysis: Montana's submittal meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the following
infrastructure elements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with
regards to the requirement to have a SIP-approved minor NSR program,
(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) with regards to the requirements of
sections 121 and 127 of the Act, (K), (L), and (M).
    In this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the following
infrastructure elements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: (C) with regards to
the requirement for the SIP to include a permit program as required in
part C of title I of the Act, and (J) with regards to the requirement
for the SIP to meet the applicable requirements of part C relating to
PSD.
    In this action, EPA is taking no action on infrastructure elements
(D)(i) and (I) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting Federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
Federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; 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, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 12, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2011-12357 Filed 5-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 34393-34394]
[DOCID:fr15jy09-142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

[Dockets No. FAA-2007-29320 and FAA-2008-0221]

Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International Airport
and Newark Liberty International Airport

ACTION: Notice of limited waiver of the slot usage requirement.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces a limited waiver of the minimum usage
requirements that apply to Operating Authorizations at John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK) and Newark Liberty International Airport
(EWR) for nonstop flights to or from Mexico. This policy is effective
from April 27, 2009, through September 12, 2009.

DATES: Effective Date: effective upon publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Tegtmeier, Associate Chief
Counsel for the Air Traffic Organization; telephone--(202) 267-8323; e-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 1, the Air Transport Association (ATA) requested a partial
waiver of the minimum slot usage requirements at JFK and EWR. The ATA
requested relief for flights between points in Mexico and JFK or EWR,
citing the recent incidence of H1N1 influenza that has affected the
number of airline passengers traveling to and from cities in Mexico.
ATA also cites actions by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organization, and the Mexican
government to address the H1N1 outbreak, which have limited passenger
demand for flights to Mexico.
    According to ATA, demand had fallen by approximately 50 percent and
future bookings were ``vastly reduced.'' ATA represented that the
relief is necessary to address an unexpected and extraordinary
disruption of travel demand and service. ATA sought a waiver of the
minimum usage requirements on flights to and from Mexico, as well as to
and from any other country to which the CDC recommends against
unnecessary travel. The CDC issued such a recommendation regarding non-
essential travel to and from Mexico on April 27. The CDC withdrew its
recommendation on May 15, narrowing its travel-related, precautionary
advice to the population that is at risk for complications from the
virus.
    Under the FAA's orders limiting scheduled operations at the
airports, slots must be used at least 80 percent of the time or they
will be withdrawn and will not receive historic precedence for the
following scheduling season.\1\ The FAA may grant a waiver from the
minimum usage requirements in highly unusual and unpredictable
conditions that are beyond the control of the carrier and affect
carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 8,737, 8,737-38, 8,739 (Feb. 14, 2008) (JFK); 73 FR
29,550, 29,554-55 (May 21, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement of Policy

    The FAA has determined that the circumstances surrounding the
outbreak of the H1NI flu meet the criteria for a limited waiver of the
applicable minimum slot usage requirements. On April 27, the CDC issued
a Travel Health Warning recommending against non-essential travel to
Mexico. The CDC downgraded this warning on May 15 to a Travel Health
Precaution, urging travelers to take steps to protect against
contracting the H1NI flu and to consider postponing travel if the
traveler is in a population that is at risk for complications from the
virus.
    We have evaluated the effect of the CDC recommendations on carriers
that conduct scheduled service to affected airports. Our review of
carrier schedules at JFK, EWR, and other airports shows that carriers
have cancelled flights or adjusted frequencies for various dates
through the summer season. Many carriers have also adopted policies to
allow limited flexibility for passengers to change or cancel
reservations for Mexico flights. Carriers are assessing demand to
determine when or if to restore flights to points in Mexico. At the
same time, overall demand for flights in the New York City area remains
strong, and several carriers are seeking slots for new or expanded
service. As a result, carriers that have cancelled service to Mexico
could use the slots to serve other markets or to enter into agreements
to have other carriers use their slots for a period of time.
    The FAA has decided to grant the waiver until September 12, because
many carriers have significant schedule changes during that month. This
would also afford affected carriers a period of time to arrange for the
continued use of the operating authority at or above the minimum use
threshold, either by adding service to unaffected locations or by
leasing or trading the operating authority to another carrier that can
conduct such service. This slot usage waiver applies only to nonstop
flights

scheduled between JFK or EWR and a point in Mexico during the effective
dates of this policy and only to flights that were available for sale
prior to April 27, 2009.
    Carriers must identify to the FAA's Slot Administration Office the
dates for which the waiver is requested and provide the flight number,
origin/destination airport, scheduled time of operation, and the slot
identification number. By August 14, carriers should identify qualified
cancelled flights for the period from April 27 through August 2.
Beginning August 3, carriers must provide advance notice of
cancellations to the FAA Slot Administration Office in order to obtain
a waiver. Information should be provided to the Slot Administration
Office by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by facsimile at (202)
267-7277.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 7, 2009.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. E9-16512 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: August 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 169)]
[Notice]
[Page 50359-50360]
[DOCID:fr31au07-91]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI07-11-000]

Bangor Water District; Notice of Declaration of Intention and
Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

August 22, 2007.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No.: DI07-11-000.
    c. Date Filed: July 24, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Bangor Water District.
    e. Name of Project: Bangor Water District Hydropower Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Bangor Water District Hydropower Project
will be located in the District's existing water transmission pipe, in
Penobscot County, near Bangor, Maine.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Kathy Moriarty, General Manager, Bangor Water
District, P.O. Box 1129, 614 State Street, Bangor, ME 04402-1129;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions:
September 24, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and/or interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing link.''
    Please include the docket number (DI07-11-000) on any comments,
protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed Bangor Water District
Hydropower Project will include: (1) Two 36-inch-diameter, one-mile-
long water intake pipes, connected to a water treatment plant; (2) a
30-inch, 15-mile-long reinforced concrete pipe from the water treatment
plant to a point under the Penobscot River, where it splits into two
24-inch reinforced concrete water pipes; (3) a 75-kW Canyon turbine/
generator horizontal shaft unit, which will be installed in one of the
24-inch pipes, replacing a pressure reducing valve; (4) the two pipes
rejoin, forming a 30-inch main, which conveys water to storage tanks
for distribution into the Bangor water system; and (5) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project will not occupy any tribal or federal
lands.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link, select ``Docket'' and follow the
instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online

Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-17239 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P