[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 33 (Thursday, February 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 9348]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2856-000]

Sand Drag LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate
Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sand Drag LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 2, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 10, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-3580 Filed 2-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


The Effect of Blowing Agent Choice on Energy and Environmental Impact
of a Refrigerator in Europe

Robert W Johnson

RWJ Consulting Inc.

     717 Mels Drive

     Evansville, IN 47712

ABSTRACT

A study, comparing the effect of blowing agent selection on energy
consumption and the Life Cycle Climate Performance (LCCP) of a typical
European refrigerator is discussed.   Energy consumption of prototype
European-style refrigerators made with a foam formulation with HFC-245fa
as the blowing agent was measured and compared with energy consumption
of the same model as currently produced (using a foam with a pentane
blend for the blowing agent).  Results were used in a LCCP study,
considering both direct and indirect climate impacts due to blowing
agent emissions and energy consumption in manufacturing processes and
over the life cycle of the refrigerator.  An assumption is made that the
refrigerator is built and used in the European market.

INTRODUCTION

The phase-out of CFC-11 as a foam-blowing agent, as called for under the
Montreal Protocol, is well along for insulating foams in refrigerators
and freezers.  The most common replacements with zero ozone depletion
potential have been c-pentane and mixtures of c-pentane with other
hydrocarbons, along with some HFCs, including HFC-134a, and HFC-245fa.
Although HFCs account for only a small fraction of total greenhouse gas
emissions, the global warming potential of most HFCs is quite large.
This raises legitimate questions regarding the appropriateness of using
HFCs as replacement blowing agents for foam.  Refrigerators, however,
make their largest contribution to global warming in an indirect manner
as a result of the energy that they consume.  Therefore, manufacturers
have made different choices for the replacement, depending on their
assessment of the relative merits of the available options.  In Europe,
hydrocarbons have been chosen because of the importance placed on direct
emissions of global warming substances.  Conversely, in North America
strict energy standards and factory safety regulations have led to HFCs
(mostly HFC-245fa) as the preferred approach.

This study is an attempt to analyze the relative merits of the two most
popular options (a cyclopentane/pentane blend and HFC-245fa) through a
limited life cycle analysis (LCA), considering only items related to the
choice of blowing agent and its influence on the energy consumption and
the total global warming impact, or “life cycle climate performance”
(LCCP) of a refrigerator. The refrigerator considered in the study is a
model commonly produced and used in Europe.  Emissions and energy
consumption at the blowing agent and refrigerator factories are
included, but energy consumption associated with parts that are
unrelated to the blowing agent is not considered.  Expanding the
analysis to include the items omitted in this study would be
interesting, but the final results would not change, because the omitted
items would be similar for both products considered.

PRODUCT INFORMATION AND KEY DATA

 The refrigerator considered in the study is a 358-liter “combi”
type product that has a fresh food section at the top and a freezer
section at the bottom and is popular in Europe.  Both sections have a
“direct-cool” type refrigeration system. The refrigerant used in the
products was R-600, which is commonly used in Europe and has no ozone
depletion potential and a very low greenhouse warming potential. The
pentane blend foam formulation used for the products tested was the same
as is used for that model as it is produced in Italy.  The blowing agent
was a blend of 70% cyclopentane and 30% isopentane.  The HFC-245fa
formulation used for the comparison was the same as is used in a large
North American refrigerator factory. The products were similar in all
respects except the foam formulation and blowing agent. Energy tests
were conducted per the ISO test procedure in facilities used to measure
energy consumption for certification tests on products sold in Europe.
Three products foamed with the pentane formulation and three products
foamed with the HFC-245fa formulation were tested.  Results for the
three samples of each type were averaged for purposes of comparison.
Analysis of the data indicated greater than 90% confidence that the mean
is within 2% of the true mean of the population for both products. Data
for the products were furnished by the manufacturer and are summarized
in Table 1.

Values used for other parameters important to the study are shown in
Table 2. Carbon intensity values for Europe are EIA estimates for the
year 2000[1]. Energy intensity estimates for highway and waterborne
transportation were taken from a 1995 EIA report [2].  Although the
transportation carbon intensity values were estimates for the U.S.
economy, it is believed that they also are reasonable assumptions for
Europe. Product lifetime is assumed to be 15 years, which is typical for
Europe, although shorter than in North America.

DISPOSAL PRACTICES

The amount of foam blowing agent that ultimately escapes to the
atmosphere is strongly dependent on what is done with the refrigerator
at the end of its useful life. Some refrigerators are incinerated in
municipal incinerators at the end of their useful life, in which case
the blowing agent is destroyed. If the refrigerator is merely abandoned,
or sent to a landfill with no processing, blowing agent will escape very
slowly, with a significant amount remaining after 100 years [6]. The
UNEP Task Force on Collection, Recovery and Storage conducted a study of
current disposal practices in North America, Europe, and Japan in 2001
[7]. The report estimates that in 2001approximately 60% of the foam from
refrigerators decommissioned in Europe would go to landfills.
Presumably, most would be shredded for recovery of the metal and the
foam would be sent to the landfill, with no recovery of the blowing
agent.  Under these conditions, a recent study at the Danish Technical
University (DTU) indicates that about 20% of the blowing agent will
escape at the time of shredding, and the remainder will escape over
time, with the rate of emission highly dependent on foam particle size
[8]. The UNEP report indicates that disposal practices are expected to
change in response to EU directives. Therefore, this study considered
one case where 60% of products go to landfills, and another where new
practices are used and only 10% go to landfills.

FOAM AGING

Energy consumption measurements are usually made on new products.
However, because foam degrades over time due to migration of blowing
agent out and other gases in, energy consumption may increase over time.
 This increases global warming emissions associated with electricity
consumption of the product.  The Appliance Research Consortium sponsored
a study at Oak Ridge National Laboratories to measure aging effects for
several blowing agents. Results of that study have been reported in the
literature by Wilkes [9].  Another study, involving tests on full
products, was conducted and reported by Johnson [6].  Together, those
studies provide information adequate to model the increase of
refrigerator energy consumption due to foam aging.  A combination of
Johnson’s and Wilkes’ data was used to create a model for foam aging
to predict energy consumption of the products over their useful life.
The model is shown graphically in Figure 1, along with data points from
Johnson’s report.  Trends at 5 years indicate that the model may
slightly overestimate the aging effect for both foam types, but the
difference between predicted energy consumption for the two foam types
appears to match the data quite well. The model, together with the
measured initial consumption, was used to estimate total energy
consumption for each foam type over a 15-year period.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Energy Consumption

The energy consumption of the refrigerators for a 15-year life was
estimated, using the data from Table 1 and the aging model discussed
above.  Results are shown in Figure 2.  The HFC-245fa products had an
advantage in measured energy consumption of about 12%, relative to the
c-pentane products. This advantage is larger than had been measured in
previous tests conducted by the Appliance Research Consortium [10].
However, the foam formulations tested by the Consortium were
representative of what was achievable at that time.  The formulations
used in the current study are improved and represent what is
commercially available in 2003.  The 12% initial energy consumption
advantage for the HFC-245fa products grows to about 15% when aging
effects over the life of the product are considered.  This significant
advantage in energy performance should be highly valued in most markets,
including the European Union, which is dependent on imports for much of
its energy supply [11].

Life Cycle Climate Performance (LCCP)

The data and assumptions discussed above were used in LCCP calculations
that were made, considering sales into the European market, including
Eastern Europe, but not former Soviet Union countries. In all cases
analyzed, the dominant factor in the LCCP analysis is the indirect
emissions of CO2 due to energy consumption of the product over its
useful life.  Even in the case where 60% of the HFC-245fa products are
assumed to be shredded and sent to landfills after decommissioning, more
than 80% of the global warming effect is due to electricity consumption
of the product. Modern production facilities are designed to minimize
emissions from the factory so that fugitive emissions in the HFC-245fa
factory are less than 0.5% and account for less than 0.1% of the total
warming effect, while blowing agent emissions during refrigerator
production are estimated to be less than 2% and contribute no more than
0.6% of the warming effect.  Transportation of the blowing agent results
in insignificant emissions, even when considering shipping HFC-245fa
across the Atlantic, while transportation of refrigerators accounts for
approximately 0.3% of total global warming emissions, assuming an
average 500 mile shipment by truck.

Results of the LCCP analysis are summarized in Figures 3 and 4 which
show two scenarios.  Figure 3 reflects the case where disposal practices
are assumed to be unchanged from those in place in 2001.  Figure 4
reflects the case where disposal practices are assumed to change in
response to EU directives for recycling and recovery so that only about
10% of the blowing agent that remains in a product at the end of its
useful life escapes to the atmosphere. Data used for Figures 3 and 4 are
shown in Table 3.

The relative insignificance of the miscellaneous items that are
considered in the LCA is clearly seen.  Emissions associated with energy
consumed during the production process and transportation are very much
less than those associated with energy consumption of the product or
direct emissions of the blowing agent over the long term.  The same is
true for blowing agent emissions in the factories.

Other Regions

Although Europe is of particular interest because of the debate
regarding the use of HFCs in that market, it is also important to
consider the total warming impact of similar products in other regions.
Calculations were made for other countries, using estimates for carbon
intensity from EIA data[1] and disposal practice assumptions as follows:
 50% of decommissioned products in the U.S., Australia and New Zealand,
80% in Brazil, China, and India, and 5% in Japan would go to shredders
and landfills. It is clear from the results, as seen in Figure 5, that a
product foamed with HFC-245fa would have less of a climate impact than a
product foamed with the c-pentane blend in all of these regions, except
Brazil, which has large hydroelectric resources.

CONCLUSIONS

With current foam formulations, the use of HFC-245fa as a blowing agent,
instead of a cyclopentane and n-pentane blend, offers a significant
advantage in energy consumption for refrigerator/freezers of the type
considered in this study.  The advantage was over 12% for initial energy
consumption and when aging differences are considered, the advantage is
about 15% over the life of the product.

The two blowing agents considered in this study are similar in terms of
LCCP.  In Europe the pentane product would have about a 3% advantage
with 2001 disposal practices.  But, if disposal practices improve, as
called for in EU directives, the HFC-245fa product has nearly a 10%
advantage in LCCP.  In the other markets considered, the HFC-245fa
products would typically have an advantage of between 5 and 10 percent,
except in Brazil where the climate impact would be small in any case.

By far the dominant item in LCCP is the energy consumption of the
product and the associated emissions from the electricity generation
system. Even if one assumes that there will be no improvement in
disposal practices in response to EU directives, the power plant
emissions associated with energy consumption account for more than 80%
of the total life cycle global warming impact of the product.  Blowing
agent emissions, including all stages of the product life cycle, usually
account for approximately 10% of the total warming impact in the case
where HFC-245fa is used as the blowing agent.  Emissions due to energy
consumption during manufacturing the blowing agent and the refrigerator
are minor, amounting to less than 1% of the total, as are emissions
related to energy consumption for the transportation of the blowing
agent and refrigerator.

Considering the many challenges faced by appliance manufacturers and the
strong need to both save energy resources and limit global warming
emissions, both HFCs and hydrocarbons should be available as long-term
options for refrigerator insulating foam blowing agents.  The advantage
provided by HFC-245fa in reducing product energy consumption could be a
valuable option to manufacturers as they develop products that meet
aggressive energy saving goals and reduce total global warming
emissions.

References

Total Emissions Attributed to Electricity Generation -- Source EIA
estimates, Kevin Lillis<PHONE_NUMBER>, Personal Communication

“MEASURING ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN THE UNITED STATES' ECONOMY: A
BEGINNING” , October 1995, Energy Information Administration, Office
of Energy Markets and End Use, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC
20585

“CLIMATE CHANGE 2001: THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS”, IPCC Report, Working
Group

IPCC Second Assessment Report (1995)

I Boustead, “Ecoprofiles of Plastics and Related Intermediates”,
APME, Brussels, 1999

Robert W. Johnson, "The Effect of Blowing Agent on Refrigerator/Freezer
TEWI", Polyurethanes Conference 2000, Boston, Massachusetts, October
8-11, 2000

UNEP Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel: Volume 3A
Report of the Task force on Collection, Recovery and Storage, April
2002.

Scheutz and Kjeldsen, “Determination of the Fraction of Blowing Agent
Released from Refrigerator/Freezer Foam after Decommissioning the
Product”, Environment & Resources DTU, January 2002.

Wilkes, Gabbard, and Weaver, “Aging of Polyurethane Foam Insulation in
Simulated Refrigerator Panels – One-Year Results with Third-Generation
Blowing Agents”, Earth Technologies Forum, Washington, DC, 1999.

G. J. Haworth, 1996, “Next Generation Insulation Foam Blowing Agents
for Refrigerators/Freezers”, Proceedings, International Conference on
Ozone Protection Technologies, pp. 467-476, Washington, D.C. (1996).

 “Green Paper: Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy
Supply”, Presented by the Commission of the European Communities,
Brussels, November 29, 2000.

BIOGRAPHY

Robert W Johnson

Bob Johnson is President of RWJ Consulting Inc. of Evansville, Indiana.
He retired in 2001 from Whirlpool Corporation where he held various
positions at the Refrigeration Technology Center.  He received his BS in
Mechanical Engineering from Michigan Tech and his MS and PhD degrees
from Michigan State University.  Bob has served on the UNEP Foams
Technical Options Committee and is a member of the Appliance Research
Consortium Board of Directors.

Figure 3: Emissions Comparison, Current Disposal Practices, 60%
Landfilled

Figure 4: Emissions Comparison, Future Disposal Practices, 10%
Landfilled

Figure 1. Refrigerator Energy Aging

Figure 2. Product Lifetime Energy Consumption

Figure 5: Warming Impact Comparison

Table 1.  Refrigerator Data  (Source: Whirlpool)

Item	HFC-245fa Model	Pentane Model

Refrigerator Type	Combi (358 liters)	Combi (358 liters)

Amount of Blowing Agent	0.985 kg	0.393 kg

Energy Consumption (Average of 3)	398 kWh/yr	455 kWh/yr

Refrigerant	R-600	R-600

Natural Gas to produce a refrigerator	0.0410 MCF/product	0.0410
MCF/product

Electricity to produce a refrigerator	7.16 kWh/product	7.16 kWh/product

Table 2.  Key Data

Item	Value	Units	Source

Carbon Intensity – All Europe	.41	kg CO2 /kWh	EIA Estimates [1]

Energy Intensity Highway Transport	3000	BTU / ton-mile	EIA Report [2]

Energy Intensity Waterborne Transport	411	BTU / ton-mile	EIA Report [2]

GWP -- HFC-245fa	950

IPCC [3]

GWP – c-pentane, n-pentane	3

IPCC [4]

Natural Gas (Energy) to produce HFC-245fa	0.017	MCF / lb 	Honeywell

Electricity to produce HFC-245fa:	1.83	kWh / lb 	Honeywell

CO2 Emissions for  production of pentane	1.2	kg CO2 / kg 	APME [5]

Assumed product useful life	15	years

Item	Current Disposal Practices	Future Disposal Practices

	HFC-245fa	Pentane	HFC-245fa	Pentane

BA Production Energy	4.5	1.2	4.5	1.2

BA Production Emissions	2.8	0	2.8	0

BA Transport Energy	0.17	0.05	0.17	0.05

Refrigerator Production:  BA Emissions  	18.7	0.1	18.7	0.1

Refrigerator Production Energy	5.0	5.0	5.0	5.0

Refrigerator Transport Energy	8.0	8.0	8.0	8.0

Refrigerator Use Energy	2697	3198	2697	3198

Refrigerator Life BA Emissions	68.8	0.1	68.8	0.1

Refrigerator Shredding Emissions	101.8	0.1	17.0	0.1

Long Term Emissions	407.2	0.5	67.9	0.2

Total Impact	3306	3212	2882	3212

Table 3: LCCP Summary


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48847]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Project No. 12933-002]

 FFP Project 49 LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On February 1, 2011, FFP Project 49 LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of hydropower on the Mississippi River, near the town
of Hickman, in Fulton County Kentucky and Mississippi County, Missouri.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the
permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit
term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to
perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or
waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Hickman Bend hydrokinetic project would consist of the
following: (1) Up to 2,850 SmarTurbine generating units installed in
arrays on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 114,000 kilowatts; (3) flexible cables
would convey each arrays power to a metering station; and (4) a
transmission line would interconnect with the power grid. The proposed
project would have an average annual generation of 249,660,000
kilowatt-hours (kWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-12933-002) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20153 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 18, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 11)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 2853-2859]
[DOCID:fr18ja11-22]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-1027; FRL-9253-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Infrastructure State Implementation Plan Requirement To
Address Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve and, in the alternative,
proposing to disapprove a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC) on September 16, 2009, as supplemented
with a technical analysis submitted for parallel-processing by DNREC on
December 9, 2010, to address significant contribution to nonattainment
or interference with maintenance in another State with respect to the
2006 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). EPA's rationale for proposing approval and,
in the alternative, proposing disapproval of Delaware's September 16,
2009 SIP revision and its associated December 9, 2010 supplement is
described in this proposal. Please note that today's proposed
rulemaking action addresses only those portions of Delaware's September
16, 2009 submittal which pertain to significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another State
requirements pursuant to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not
taking action at this time on any other portion of Delaware's September
16, 2009 submittal. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 17,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2010-1027 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2010-1027, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2010-1027. 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401,
Dover, Delaware 19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Wentworth,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. Description of the SIP Revision Submitted by the State of
Delaware
IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the State's submittals?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve and, in the alternative, proposing to
disapprove a revision to the Delaware SIP submitted by DNREC on
September 16, 2009, as supplemented with a technical analysis submitted
by DNREC for parallel-processing on December 9, 2010, to satisfy the
infrastructure SIP requirements relating to interstate transport in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The December 9, 2010 supplement to DNREC's
September 16, 2009 revision consists of a technical analysis that
provides detailed support for Delaware's position that it has satisfied
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The December 9, 2010 supplement to the
September 16, 2009 SIP revision was submitted to EPA by DNREC for
parallel-processing with a request that it be considered by EPA in
taking any rulemaking action on the September 16, 2009 SIP submission.
Before EPA takes final action on DNREC's SIP revision to satisfy the
infrastructure SIP requirements relating to interstate transport in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA pursuant to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, DNREC will have completed conducting the public
participation procedures required by section 110(a) of the CAA on the
December 9, 2010 supplement to its September 16, 2009 SIP revision.
Once those procedures are completed, DNREC will formally submit the
technical analysis to EPA, along with all required administrative
documentation, as a final supplement to the September 16, 2009 SIP
revision. Delaware's December 9, 2010 request for parallel-processing
of the technical analysis was done pursuant to the procedures of 40 CFR
Part 51 Appendix v at section 2.3.
    It should be noted that this proposed rulemaking action addresses
only those portions of Delaware's September 16, 2009 submittal which
address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in
another State with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. At this
time, EPA is not taking action on any additional requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) or on any other portions of Delaware's
September 16, 2009 submittal.

II. What is the background for this action?

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ which became effective on
December 18, 2006. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires States to
submit infrastructure SIP revisions to address a new or revised NAAQS
within three years after promulgation of such standards, or within such
shorter period as EPA may prescribe.\1\ As provided by section
110(k)(2), within 12 months of a determination that a SIP submittal is
complete under section 110(k)(1), the Administrator shall act on the
plan. As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, where portions of
the State submittals are severable, EPA may propose to approve only
those severable portions of the submittals that meet the requirements
of the CAA. When the deficient provisions are not severable from all of
the submitted provisions, EPA must propose disapproval of the
submittals, consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was signed
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21,
2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a)
infrastructure SIP submittals, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour
NAAQS were due on September 21, 2009, three years from the September
21, 2006 signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new infrastructure
SIPs must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
which pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. On
September 25, 2009, EPA issued its ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) NAAQS'' (hereafter the 2009 Guidance). EPA developed
the 2009 Guidance to inform States making submissions to meet the
requirements of section 110, including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS due on September 16, 2009.
    As identified in EPA's 2009 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each State

to submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another
State in the ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts of
interstate transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the State from
emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other States; (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other States; (3) interfere with provisions
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other States; or
(4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other States.
    In its 2009 Guidance, EPA indicated that SIP submissions from
States pertaining to the ``significant contribution'' and ``interfere
with maintenance'' requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) must contain
adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the
State that contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other State. EPA further indicated that
the State's submission must explain whether or not emissions from the
State have this impact and, if so, address the impact. EPA stated that
the State's conclusion must be supported by an adequate technical
analysis. EPA recommended the various types of information that could
be relevant to support the State SIP submission, such as information
concerning emissions in the State, meteorological conditions in the
State and the potentially impacted States, monitored ambient
concentrations in the State, and air quality modeling. Furthermore, EPA
indicated that States should address the ``interfere with maintenance''
requirement independently, which requires an evaluation of impacts on
areas of other States that are meeting the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas designated nonattainment.
Lastly, in the 2009 Guidance, EPA stated that States could not rely on
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS because CAIR does not address this NAAQS.
    EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005 (See 70 FR 25162). The CAIR
required States to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2),
and nitrogen oxides (NOX) that significantly contribute to,
and interfere with maintenance of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5
and/or ozone in any downwind State. The CAIR was intended to provide
States covered by the rule with a mechanism to satisfy their CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to address significant
contribution to downwind nonattainment and interference with
maintenance in another State with respect to the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. Many States adopted CAIR's provisions and
submitted SIPs to EPA to demonstrate compliance with CAIR's
requirements in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
for those two criteria pollutants.
    EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and
the associated CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in their
entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Cir. Jul. 11, 2008).
However, in response to EPA's petition for rehearing, the Court issued
an order remanding CAIR to EPA without vacating either CAIR or the CAIR
FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. Dec. 23, 2008). The
Court thereby left CAIR in place in order to ``temporarily preserve the
environmental values covered by CAIR'' until EPA replaces it with a
rule consistent with the Court's opinion. Id. at 1178. The Court
directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with its July 11,
2008, opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for completing
that action. Id.
    In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, on August 2, 2010,
EPA proposed a new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone''
(hereafter the Transport Rule).\2\ As part of the proposed Transport
Rule, EPA specifically examined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirement that emissions from sources in a State must not
``significantly contribute to nonattainment'' and ``interfere with
maintenance'' of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by other
States. The modeling performed by EPA for the proposed Transport Rule
indicates that emissions from the State of Delaware significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another State. The Transport Rule
Federal Implementation Plan, (hereafter the Transport Rule FIP), as
proposed, thus covers the State of Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of Delaware had not expected to be subject to or covered
by the proposed Transport Rule FIP. The State's expectation that it
would not be covered was based on its periodic emission inventories
(PEI) for PM2.5 and three Delaware regulations that had been
approved by EPA into the Delaware SIP to control PM2.5
precursor emissions. On September 16, 2009, Delaware submitted a SIP
revision to address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement that
emissions from sources in a State must not ``significantly contribute
to nonattainment'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another State. The State of Delaware's
expectation was and is that EPA would approve that SIP revision.
    On October 1, 2010, DNREC submitted timely, extensive comments to
the rulemaking docket of the proposed Transport Rule FIP (see Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491). These comments identify several errors and
omissions which DNREC believes were made by EPA in the modeling and
analyses performed for the proposed Transport Rule FIP with regard to
the State of Delaware. It is DNREC's contention that once EPA fully
considers its October 1, 2010 comments submitted on the proposed
Transport Rule FIP, that EPA will conclude that the State of Delaware
does not contribute to nonattainment and does not interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another
State. It is Delaware's position that its SIP approved rules in
conjunction with applicable Federal rules achieve emission reductions
in PM2.5 precursors such that emissions from the State of
Delaware neither significantly contribute to any other State's
nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS nor interfere with the
ability of any other State to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Further, Delaware contends that existing Federal rules (not including
CAIR) and State rules approved into its existing SIP, keep Delaware's
emissions below the caps that EPA proposed to set for the State of
Delaware in the proposed Transport Rule FIP. Both DNREC's comments on
the proposed Transport Rule and its December 9, 2010 supplemental
technical analysis include comprehensive documentation of the emissions
of SO2 and NOx from Delaware's PEI, and a
thorough explanation of the differences between the PEI and the
emissions in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) used by EPA in
performing the modeling and analyses in support of the

proposed Transport Rule. The DNREC contends that the State of Delaware
should not be subject to and covered by the final Transport Rule FIP,
and that EPA should approve its September 16, 2009 SIP submittal as
supplemented by the technical analysis submitted on December 9, 2010.

III. Description of the SIP Revision Submitted by the State of Delaware

    In order to meet the ``three-years from promulgation due date'' of
September 16, 2009 for submittal of the infrastructure SIP elements
required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS promulgated on September 16, 2006; on September 16, 2009, the
State of Delaware submitted a SIP revision to address the
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Because EPA's ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particle (PM2.5) NAAQS'' was not issued until September 25,
2009, DNREC contends it could not have met the September 16, 2009
statutory due date had it waited for EPA's guidance to prepare and
submit its infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
DNREC makes the point that until the 2009 Guidance was issued, Delaware
was not aware that a technical analysis was required to be part of a
SIP submittal to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. It is DNREC's contention that its October 1,
2010 comments submitted to EPA on the proposed Transport Rule (see
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491) meet the 2009 Guidance's
requirement for a technical analysis in support of its September 16,
2009 SIP submittal to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Despite this contention and in the best
interests of the State of Delaware, DNREC submitted a supplement to its
September 16, 2009 submittal dated December 9, 2010 which consists of a
technical analysis to support the September 16, 2009 submittal. The
DNREC's December 9, 2010 supplement uses the comments, data, and
information submitted by Delaware on the proposed Transport Rule to
form the basis of a technical analysis in support of its September 16,
2009 SIP revision to comply with EPA's September 25, 2009 Guidance. In
its September 16, 2009 and December 9, 2010 submissions, DNREC
indicates that the State of Delaware has complied with the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements of the CAA, addressing interstate
transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, through promulgation of:
    A. 7 DE Admin. Code 1146, Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant
Regulation,
    B. 7 DE Admin. Code 1142, Section 2, Control of NOX
Emissions from Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters at Petroleum
Refineries, and
    C. 7 DE Admin. Code 1148, Control of Stationary Combustion Turbine
Electric Generating Unit Emissions.
    Each of the above regulations imposes a level of control based upon
Best Available Control Technology (BACT), and significantly reduces
emissions from Delaware's largest Electric Generating Units (EGUs),
industrial boilers, and peaking units. These regulations have been
approved by the EPA as revisions to Delaware's SIP.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Regulation 1146--Electric Generating Unit Multi-Pollutant
Regulation. Final rule published August 28, 2008 (73 FR 50723),
effective September 29, 2008. Regulation 1148--Control of Stationary
Combustion Turbine Electric Generating Unit Emissions. Final rule
published November 10, 2008 (73 FR 66554), effective December 10,
2008. Regulation 1142, Section 2--Control of Nitrogen Oxide
Emissions from Industrial Boilers and Process Heaters at Petroleum
Refineries. Final rule published on June 4, 2010 (75 FR 31711),
effective July 6, 2010. Correction notice done (for table) on June
10, 2010 (75 FR 32858). Note: Regulation 1142 was not referred to in
DNREC's September 16, 2009 submittal as it was adopted by Delaware
on October 14, 2009, effective November 11, 2009, and SIP approved
on June 4, 2010. It is referred to in DNREC's December 9, 2010
supplemental submittal as another regulation imposing BACT level
controls for PM2.5 precursors and SIP-approved by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both Delaware's entire September 16, 2009 SIP submittal and the
entire December 9, 2010 supplement to the September 16, 2009 submittal
are included in the rulemaking docket for today's proposed action (see
Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2010-1027). As previously stated, it is
Delaware's position that its SIP-approved rules in conjunction with
applicable Federal rules (not including CAIR) achieve emission
reductions in PM2.5 precursors such that emissions from the
State of Delaware neither significantly contribute to any other State's
nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS nor interfere with the
ability of any other State to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
Further, Delaware contends that these emission reductions keep
Delaware's emissions below the caps EPA proposed to set for the State
of Delaware in the proposed Transport Rule.

IV. What is EPA's evaluation of the State's submittals?

    On September 16, 2009, the State of Delaware submitted a SIP
revision to address the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and section
110(a)(2)(A)-(M) of the CAA, pursuant to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA subsequently published a Federal Register notice on June 3,
2010 (75 FR 31340) proposing approval of certain elements, or portions
thereof, of Delaware's SIP submittals for the 1997 8-hour ozone and the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. At that time, EPA did not take
any proposed action on any portion of Delaware's SIP submittals to
address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 1997 ozone
or the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's action is
proposing approval and, in the alternative, proposing disapproval of
that portion of Delaware's September 16, 2009 submittal, as
supplemented on December 9, 2010, pertaining to the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance with respect to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Delaware has determined that it has complied with the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
through the promulgation of its SIP-approved regulations to reduce
PM2.5 precursor emissions of SO2 and
NOX from EGUs, industrial boilers, and peaking units.
Delaware started with the assumption that it did significantly impact
downwind areas and moved forward and regulated NOX and
SO2 emissions from its large EGU and industrial boilers
including EGUs with small annual emissions, but high daily emissions
(typically referred to as high energy demand day units) with BACT level
controls. Because of this, Delaware believes it has clearly mitigated
transport and has adequately addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45210), EPA proposed a Transport Rule FIP
that would, if finalized as proposed, identify the emission reductions
needed in 32 States in the eastern United States to prohibit air
pollutant emissions from sources within a State from significantly
contributing to nonattainment in or interfering with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other State. The proposed Transport Rule would replace
CAIR and would address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The modeling and analyses conducted by
EPA for the proposed Transport Rule FIP indicated that emissions from
Delaware significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas.
Therefore, Delaware is among those States identified in the proposed
Transport Rule FIP as significantly contributing to nonattainment or
interfering with

maintenance in downwind States. EPA received significant comments on
this rulemaking from the State of Delaware and others, and is in the
process of reviewing those comments. As noted previously, DNREC
submitted extensive comments and technical data to support its
contention that the State of Delaware has been inappropriately named as
a State that needs to be covered by the proposed Transport Rule FIP.
EPA will be considering and responding to the comments submitted by
Delaware on the proposed Transport Rule in the context of that
rulemaking.
    Delaware's December 9, 2010 supplemental technical analysis in
support of its September 16, 2009 SIP revision includes information and
data to support its assertion that the 2005 base year emission
inventories that EPA used in its analysis of Delaware's contribution to
downwind nonattainment and maintenance areas were flawed. Delaware
asserts that the emissions inventories used by EPA were significantly
higher than those Delaware submitted to EPA in its 2005 PEI. Delaware
also asserts that EPA failed to consider emission reductions required
by a number of Delaware rules that have been approved by EPA into the
State SIP. In its supplemental technical analysis, Delaware contends,
therefore, that EPA's projections of Delaware's 2012 emissions are
inflated. If correct data had been used, Delaware asserts, the
methodology used by EPA in the proposed Transport Rule FIP to identify
States with emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other
States would demonstrate that Delaware has no such emissions. The DNREC
also contends that if correct data were used, EPA's 2012 base case EGU
SO2 emissions projections would be lower than the
SO2 budgets EPA proposed to establish for EGUs in Delaware
in the proposed Transport Rule FIP. In addition, DNREC contends EPA's
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) 2012 EGU NOX emission
projections for Delaware are less than the NOX budgets EPA
proposed to establish for Delaware in the proposed Transport Rule FIP.
For these additional reasons, DNREC argues EPA should not have proposed
to include Delaware in the proposed Transport Rule FIP and should not
include Delaware in the final Transport Rule FIP.
    As stated previously, DNREC's October 1, 2010 comments on the
proposed Transport Rule FIP, including its documentation of the
corrections that it contends should be made to the 2005 emission
inventories and the 2012 projection inventories for all sectors of
PM2.5 precursors, are in the docket for that proposed
rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491) and form the basis
for Delaware's conclusion that it should not be among the States
covered by the final Transport Rule FIP. Copies of Delaware's September
16, 2009 SIP submittal and the entire technical analysis submitted by
DNREC as a supplement to that SIP on December 9, 2010 are included in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2010-1027). That technical analysis also includes Delaware's
documentation of the corrections that it contends should be made to the
2005 emission inventories and the 2012 projection inventories for all
sectors of PM2.5 precursors in support of its conclusion
that it should not be among the States covered by the final Transport
Rule FIP and that its September 16, 2009 SIP revision, as supplemented
on December 9, 2010, should be approved as satisfying the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) infrastructure SIP requirement for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA is considering the comments it received on the August 2, 2010
proposed Transport Rule FIP including those from the State of Delaware.
EPA is in the process performing additional modeling and making
technical adjustments to its analyses pursuant to the comments received
before promulgating the final Transport Rule FIP. Final determinations
regarding which States are covered by the Transport Rule FIP and what
reductions are necessary in the covered States will be made in the
final Transport Rule FIP. Today's rulemaking proposes to approve and,
in the alternative, proposes to disapprove Delaware's September 16,
2009 SIP submittal as supplemented on December 9, 2010. The final
action on this SIP revision will take into consideration the results of
the additional modeling performed and technical adjustments made by EPA
pursuant to the comments received on the proposed Transport Rule FIP.
Should EPA's updated modeling and the technical adjustments to our
analyses lead us to conclude that the State of Delaware should not be
subject to or covered by the final Transport Rule FIP, it is our
intention to take final action to approve Delaware's September 16, 2009
SIP as supplemented on December 9, 2010. Should EPA's updated modeling
and technical adjustments to our analyses for the Transport Rule lead
us to conclude that even after consideration of all comments submitted
by DNREC, the State of Delaware significantly contributes to
nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State, it is EPA's intention to
disapprove the September 16, 2009 SIP as supplemented on December 9,
2010.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
Comments may be submitted as explained in the ADDRESSES portion of this
proposed rulemaking notice.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve and, in the alternative, proposing to
disapprove the portion of Delaware's SIP revision submitted on
September 16, 2009 as supplemented on December 9, 2010 pursuant to the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The December 9, 2010 supplemental submittal is being considered
under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes
rulemaking action concurrently with the State's procedures for amending
its SIP. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the
SIP revision supplement has been formally submitted to EPA for
incorporation into the SIP.
    As stated previously, if in the course of reviewing and preparing
responses to the comments submitted on the proposed Transport Rule
including those from DNREC, EPA's additional modeling and the
adjustments made to its technical analyses indicate that the State of
Delaware should not be subject to or covered by the final Transport
Rule FIP, it is EPA's intention to take final action to approve DNREC's
September 16, 2009 SIP submission for infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as supplemented
on December 9, 2010. Alternatively, if in the course of reviewing and
preparing responses to the comments submitted on the proposed Transport
Rule including those from DNREC, EPA's additional modeling and the
adjustments made to its technical analyses indicate that Delaware
should be subject to and covered by the final Transport Rule FIP, it is
EPA's intention to take final action to disapprove Delaware's September
16, 2009 SIP submission for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as supplemented on December 9,
2010. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that

addresses a requirement of a part D plan (42 U.S.C.A. sections 7501-
7515) or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy
as described in section 7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock.
The provisions in the submittal were not submitted to meet either of
those requirements. Therefore, any final EPA action to disapprove
Delaware's September 16, 2009 section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submittal and
the accompanying technical analysis, would not trigger any sanctions.
    Any full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the
requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later
than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects
the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision before the Administrator promulgates such FIP. If EPA were to
conclude that the Delaware SIP revision discussed in this notice should
be disapproved, the Transport Rule, when final, would be the FIP that
EPA would intend to implement for the State.

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 act on State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law.

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., because this proposed action under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any
new information collection burdens but simply proposes to approve and,
in the alternative, proposes to disapprove certain State requirements
for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic
impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this
proposed action will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This proposed rule does not impose any
requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed action
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-
of itself create any new requirements but simply proposes to approve
and, in the alternative, proposes to disapprove certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no
opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from
all or part of the rule. The fact that the CAA prescribes that various
consequences (e.g., higher offset requirements) may or will flow from
this proposed action does not mean that EPA either can or must conduct
a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this
proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. We continue to be interested in
the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed action contains no Federal mandates under the
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or
the private sector. EPA has determined that the proposed action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or Tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
approve and, in the alternative, proposes to disapprove pre-existing
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or Tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.''
``Policies that have Federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.'' This
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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to
approve and, in the alternative, proposes to disapprove certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this proposed action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have Tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP EPA is proposing to approve and, in the alternative,
proposing to disapprove would not 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. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the

regulation. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed action under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any
new regulations but simply proposes to approve and, in the alternative,
proposes to disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into
the SIP.

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

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA
believes that this proposed action is not subject to the requirements
of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements
would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA lacks the discretionary authority
to address environmental justice in this proposed action. In reviewing
SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove State choices,
based on the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action on
Delaware's September 16, 2009 SIP submission, as supplemented on
December 9, 2010, to address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS merely proposes to approve and, in the
alternative, proposes to disapprove certain State requirements for
inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements.
Accordingly, it 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: January 6, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011-907 Filed 1-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7610]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 106

[Docket No. FDA-2014-D-0044]

Draft Guidance for Industry; Exempt Infant Formula Production:
Current Good Manufacturing Practices, Quality Control Procedures,
Conduct of Audits, and Records and Reports; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry;
Exempt Infant Formula Production: Current Good Manufacturing Practices
(CGMPs), Quality Control Procedures, Conduct of Audits, and Records and
Reports.'' The draft guidance, when finalized, will describe our
current thinking on the manufacturing of exempt infant formula in
relation to the requirements for CGMPs, quality control procedures,
conduct of audits, and records and reports that apply to nonexempt
infant formulas.

DATES: Although you may comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on the
draft guidance before we begin work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by May 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-850), Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send
two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing
your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benson M. Silverman, Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-850), Food and Drug Administration,
5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled
``Guidance for Industry; Exempt Infant Formula Production: Current Good
Manufacturing Practices (CGMPs), Quality Control Procedures, Audit
Procedures, and Records and Reports.'' Section 412(h)(1) (21 U.S.C.
350a(h)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
exempts an infant formula which is represented and labeled for use by
an infant with an inborn error of metabolism, low birth weight, or who
otherwise has an unusual medical or dietary problem from sections
412(a), (b), and (c) of the FD&C Act. These formulas are customarily
referred to as ``exempt infant formulas.'' The draft guidance is
intended to describe the significance of the regulations in 21 CFR part
106 for production of exempt infant formulas. Amendments to part 106,
in the form of an interim final rule, are published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.
    We are issuing this draft guidance as Level 1 draft guidance
consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115).
The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent our current thinking
on the manufacturing of exempt infant formulas in relation to the
requirements for CGMPs, quality control procedures, conduct of audits,
and records and reports for nonexempt infant formulas in part 106. It
does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternate approach may be used if
such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct or sponsor. ``Collection of information'' is defined in 44
U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or
requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records,
or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to publish
notice in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on each
proposed collection of information before submitting the collection to
OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA will publish a
60-day notice on the proposed collection of information in a future
issue of the Federal Register.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
the draft guidance and proposed collection of information to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in
the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the draft guidance
at http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov. Use
the FDA Web site listed in the previous sentence to find the most
current version of the guidance.

    Dated: February 4, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-02732 Filed 2-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 194)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57195-57196]
[DOCID:fr09oc07-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-23954; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-54-AD;
Amendment 39-15202; AD 2007-19-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Artouste III B, Artouste
III B1, and Artouste III D Turboshaft Engines; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting airworthiness directive (AD) 2007-19-11.
That AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Artouste III B, Artouste III B1, and
Artouste III D turboshaft engines. We published that AD in the Federal
Register on September 21, 2007 (72 FR 53937). The AD number of the
superseded AD, is incorrect in two places in the preamble, and in one
place in paragraph (b). This document corrects those AD numbers. In all
other respects, the original document remains the same.

DATES: Effective Date: Effective October 9, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Spinney, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 21, 2007 (72 FR 53937), we
published a final rule AD, FR Doc. E7-18484, in the Federal Register.
That AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Artouste III B, Artouste III B1, and
Artouste III D turboshaft engines. We need to make the following
corrections:
    On page 53937, in the second column, in the Supplementary
Information

paragraph, in the third line, ``2005-04-15'' is corrected to read
``2006-04-15''.
    On page 53938, in the first column, in the second line, ``2005-04-
15'' is corrected to read ``2006-04-15''.

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
On page 53938, in the third column, in paragraph (b), in the first
line, ``2005-04-15'' is corrected to read ``2006-04-15''.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 1, 2007.
Peter A. White,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-19686 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 209 (Friday, October 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75183-75185]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR

National Park Service

List of Units of the National Park System Exempt From the
Provisions of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation; National Park
Service, Interior.

ACTION: List of exempt parks.

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

SUMMARY: The National Parks Air Tour Management Act (NPATMA) requires
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Park Service
(NPS) to develop an air tour management plan for units of the national
park system where an operator has applied for authority to conduct
commercial air tours. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012
amended various provisions of NPATMA. One provision exempted national
park units with 50 or fewer annual flights from the requirement to
prepare an air tour management plan or voluntary agreement and requires
FAA and NPS to jointly publish a list of exempt parks. By Federal
Register notice (See 77 FR 75254, December 19, 2012), FAA and NPS
published an initial list of exempt parks in 2012 and another list in
2014 (See 79 FR 14569-14570, March 14, 2014). This notice provides the
annual updated list of parks that are exempt for calendar years 2014
and 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk--Mailing address: Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-
2007. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Vicki Ward--Mailing address: Natural Sounds and Night Skies Division,
National Park Service, 1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 100-31, Fort Collins,
CO 80525. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority

    1. NPATMA (Pub. L. 106-181, codified at 49 U.S.C. 40128) requires
the FAA and NPS to develop an air tour management plan for units of the
national park system where an operator has requested authority to
provide commercial air tours. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012 (2012 Act) amended various provisions of NPATMA.
    2. This Federal Register Notice addresses the following 2012 Act
amendment provisions (which are codified at 49 U.S.C. 40128(a)(5)):
    a. Exempt national park units that have 50 or fewer commercial air
tour operations each year from the requirement to prepare an air tour
management plan or voluntary agreement.
    b. Authorize NPS to withdraw the exemption if the Director
determines that an air tour management plan or voluntary agreement is
necessary to protect resources and values or visitor use and enjoyment.
    c. Require FAA and NPS to publish a list each year of national
parks covered by the exemption.

II. List of Exempt Parks 2014

    1. This list is based on the number of commercial air tour
operations reported to the FAA and NPS by air tour operators conducting
air tours under interim operating authority at national park units in
calendar year 2014 for which the total operations was 50 or fewer.
Parks on the exempt list are those that have at least one operator who
has been granted operating authority to conduct commercial air tours
over that park. Exempt parks are as follows:

Acadia National Park, ME
Big Bend National Park, TX
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, CO
Capitol Reef National Park, UT
Capulin Volcano National Monument, NM
Carlsbad Caverns National Park, NM
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, AZ
Cedar Breaks National Monument, UT
Colonial National Historical Park, VA
Colorado National Monument, CO
Coronado National Memorial, AZ
Devils Tower National Monument, WY
Dinosaur National Monument, UT/CO
Dry Tortugas National Park, FL
El Malpais National Monument, NM
El Morro National Monument, NM
Fort Bowie National Historic Site, AZ
Fort Davis National Historic Site, TX
Fort Union National Monument, NM
Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument, NM

Golden Spike National Historic Site, UT
Grand Teton National Park, WY
Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, CO
Guadalupe Mountains National Park, NM
Hohokam Pima National Monument, AZ
Hovenweep National Monument, CO/UT
Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site, AZ
Kings Canyon National Park, CA
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area, WA
Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA
Mesa Verde National Park, CO
Mojave National Preserve, CA
Montezuma Castle National Monument, AZ
Navajo National Monument, AZ
North Cascades National Park, WA
Olympic National Park, WA
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, AZ
Pecos National Historical Park, NM
Petrified Forest National Park, AZ
Petroglyph National Monument, NM
Pipe Spring National Monument, AZ
Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, TX
Saguaro National Park, AZ
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, NM
San Juan Island National Historical Park, WA
Sequoia National Park, CA
Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument, AZ
Timpanogos Cave National Monument, UT
Tumacacori National Historic Park, AZ
Tuzigoot National Monument, AZ
Voyageurs National Park, MN
Walnut Canyon National Monument, AZ
Wupatki National Monument, AZ
Yellowstone National Park, ID/MT/WY
Yosemite National Park, CA
Yucca House National Monument, CO
Zion National Park, UT

    2. NPS is authorized to withdraw a park from the exempt list if NPS
determines that an air tour management plan or voluntary agreement is
necessary to protect park resources and values or park visitor use and
enjoyment. Under this statutory authority, the NPS Director informed
the FAA Administrator in writing on September 15, 2015, that NPS
withdrew the exemption for Death Valley National Park and Mount Rainier
National Park. These two parks have been removed from the 2014 exempt
list.

III. List of Exempt Parks 2015

    1. This list is based on the number of commercial air tour
operations reported to the FAA and NPS by air tour operators conducting
air tours under interim operating authority at national park units in
calendar year 2015 for which the total operations was 50 or fewer.
Parks on the exempt list are those that have at least one operator who
has been granted operating authority to conduct commercial air tours
over that park. Exempt parks are as follows:

Acadia National Park, ME
Big Bend National Park, TX
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, CO
Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC
Capitol Reef National Park, UT
Capulin Volcano National Monument, NM
Carlsbad Caverns National Park, NM
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument, AZ
Cedar Breaks National Monument, UT
Colorado National Monument, CO
Coronado National Memorial, AZ
Devils Tower National Monument, WY
Dinosaur National Monument, UT/CO
Dry Tortugas National Park, FL
El Malpais National Monument, NM
El Morro National Monument, NM
Fort Bowie National Historic Site, AZ
Fort Davis National Historic Site, TX
Fort Union National Monument, NM
Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument, NM
Golden Spike National Historic Site, UT
Grand Teton National Park, WY
Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, CO
Guadalupe Mountains National Park, NM
Hohokam Pima National Monument, AZ
Hovenweep National Monument, CO/UT
Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site, AZ
Kings Canyon National Park, CA
Mojave National Preserve, CA
Montezuma Castle National Monument, AZ
Navajo National Monument, AZ
North Cascades National Park, WA
Olympic National Park, WA
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, AZ
Pecos National Historical Park, NM
Petrified Forest National Park, AZ
Petroglyph National Monument, NM
Pipe Spring National Monument, AZ
Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, TX
Saguaro National Park, AZ
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument, NM
San Juan Island National Historical Park, WA
Sequoia National Park, CA
Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument, AZ
Timpanogos Cave National Monument, UT
Tumacacori National Historic Park, AZ
Tuzigoot National Monument, AZ
Voyageurs National Park, MN
Walnut Canyon National Monument, AZ
Wupatki National Monument, AZ
Yellowstone National Park, ID/MT/WY
Yosemite National Park, CA
Yucca House National Monument, CO
Zion National Park, UT

    2. Mesa Verde National Park, CO, is on the 2014 exempt list but not
on the 2015 exempt list because the combined number of commercial air
tours reported by all air tour operators was 50 tours or fewer in 2014,
but exceeded 50 tours in 2015.
    3. Cape Hatteras National Seashore, NC, is not on the 2014 exempt
list but is on the 2015 exempt list because the combined number of
commercial air tours reported by all air tour operators exceeded 50
tours in 2014, but was 50 tours or fewer in 2015.
    4. Colonial National Historical Park, VA; Lake Chelan National
Recreation Area, WA; and Lassen Volcanic National Park, CA are on the
2014 exempt list but not on the 2015 exempt list because there is no
longer any operator(s) who has applied for operating authority to
conduct commercial air tours over those parks. At all the other parks
on the 2015 list, there is at least one operator who has applied for
operating authority to conduct tours over that park.

IV. List of Exempt Parks for Future Years

    The FAA and NPS will publish a list of exempt parks annually. The
list could change from year to year since parks may be added to or
removed from the exempt list based on the previous year's number of
annual operations. In order to continue to be exempt, a park must have
50 or fewer annual commercial air tour operations in any given calendar
year. The list could also change if NPS withdraws an exempted park. NPS
is authorized to withdraw a park from the exempt list if NPS determines
that an air tour management plan or a voluntary agreement is necessary
to protect park resources and values or park visitor use and enjoyment.
Pursuant to the 2012 Act, the NPS shall inform the FAA in writing of
each determination to withdraw an exemption. At parks that lose exempt
status, operators will return to interim operating authority
requirements until an air tour management plan or a voluntary agreement
has been established.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA, on August 11, 2016.
Glen A. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Western-Pacific Region, Federal Aviation
Administration.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 2016.
Raymond M. Sauvajot,
Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, National
Park Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-26092 Filed 10-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P