[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43167-43175]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18000]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1015-201129; FRL-9438-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
North Carolina; Disapproval of Interstate Transport Submission for the
2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to disapprove the portion of North
Carolina's September 21, 2009, submission which was intended to meet
the requirement to address interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Additionally, EPA is responding to comments received
on EPA's January 26, 2011, proposed disapproval of the aforementioned
portion of North Carolina's September 21, 2009, submission. On
September 21, 2009, the State of North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR),
provided a letter to EPA certifying that North Carolina's state
implementation plan (SIP) meets the interstate transport requirements
with regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically,
the interstate transport requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) prohibit a state's emissions from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with the maintenance of the NAAQS in any
other state. The effect of today's action will be the promulgation of a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for North Carolina no later than two
years from the date of disapproval. The proposed Transport Rule, when
final, is the FIP that EPA intends to implement for North Carolina.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective August 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1015. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy

form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the North
Carolina SIP, contact Mr. Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Farngalo's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information regarding the PM2.5 interstate transport
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), contact Mr. Steven
Scofield, Regulatory Development Section, at the same address above.
Mr. Scofield's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Responses to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that NAAQS. On December 18, 2006, 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\,
thus states were required to provide submissions to address section
110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA (infrastructure SIPs) for this revised
NAAQS. North Carolina provided its infrastructure submission for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on September 21, 2009. On January 26, 2011,
EPA proposed to disapprove the portion of North Carolina's September
21, 2009, infrastructure submission related to interstate transport
(i.e., 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 76
FR 4592. A summary of the background for this final action is provided
below.
    Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that infrastructure SIPs must
address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which
pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. States were
required to provide submissions to address the applicable 110(a)(2)
infrastructure requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), by
September 21, 2009.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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) SIP
submittals, the submittals for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS were due on
September 21, 2009, three years from the September 21, 2006,
signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (herein after referred to as ``EPA's 2009
Guidance''). EPA developed the EPA's 2009 Guidance to make additional
recommendations to states for making submissions to meet the
requirements of section 110, including 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As identified in the 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 CAA. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four
distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport.
Specifically, 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 the EPA's 2009 Guidance, EPA explained that submissions from
states pertaining to the ``significant contribution'' and ``interfere
with maintenance'' requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(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
described a number of considerations for states for providing an
adequate demonstration to address interstate transport requirements in
the EPA's 2009 Guidance. First, EPA noted that the state's submission
should explain whether or not emissions from the state contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS in any other state and, if so, address the impact. EPA stated
that the state's conclusion should be supported by an adequate
technical analysis. Second, EPA recommended the various types of
information that could be relevant to support the state's 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. Third,
EPA explained 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, EPA explained that states could not rely on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR
does not address this NAAQS. CAIR, promulgated by EPA on May 12, 2005
(See 70 FR 25162), required states to reduce emissions of sulfur
dioxide and nitrogen oxides that significantly contribute to, and
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and/or
ozone in any downwind state. 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 the CAIR provisions and submitted SIPs to EPA to
demonstrate compliance with the CAIR requirements in satisfaction of
their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations for those two 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 (DC Circuit or Court) issued its decision to vacate
and remand both CAIR and the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety.
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 836 (DC Circuit, July 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 Circuit, December 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, EPA has proposed a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule).\2\ As part of the proposed Transport Rule, EPA specifically
examined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements 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 for the
proposed Transport Rule shows that North Carolina significantly
contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas. EPA has now completed
the modeling for the final Transport Rule and, as indicated by the
technical support documents for this action, North Carolina in fact
contributes to downwind nonattainment in another state or interferes
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On September 21, 2009, the State of North Carolina, through NC
DENR, provided a letter to EPA certifying that the North Carolina SIP
meets the interstate transport requirements with regard to the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ Specifically, North Carolina certified
that its current SIP adequately addresses the elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires that implementation plans for each
state contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions
from sources within a state from significantly contributing to
nonattainment in or interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS (in this
case the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS) in any other state. On
January 26, 2011, EPA proposed to disapprove the portion of North
Carolina's September 21, 2009, submission related to interstate
transport for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA made
the preliminary determination that North Carolina's September 21, 2009,
submission does not meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA for this NAAQS. This action is finalizing EPA's disapproval
of North Carolina's September 21, 2009, submission with regard to
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. See EPA's January 26, 2011, proposed
disapproval rulemaking at 76 FR 4592 for further information on EPA's
rationale for this final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ North Carolina's September 21, 2009, certification letter
also explained that North Carolina's current SIP sufficiently
addresses other requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS; however, today's final rulemaking only
relates to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA will address the other section
110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in relation to North Carolina's SIP in a rulemaking separate from
today's final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Responses to Comments

    EPA received two sets of adverse comments on the January 26, 2011,
proposed rulemaking to disapprove the portion of North Carolina's
September 21, 2009, infrastructure submission on the interstate
transport requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. A full set of the comments
provided by NC DENR and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
(hereinafter referred to as ``the Commenters'') are provided in the
docket for this final action. As a general matter, the comments
overlapped on some issues, and as a result, EPA has organized the
response to comments by issue. In addition, EPA acknowledges Georgia's
comments regarding SIP processing in general. As Georgia is aware, EPA
is considering improvements to the SIP process and appreciates
Georgia's comments in that regard.
    For the most part, the Commenters oppose EPA's proposed disapproval
action for the interstate portion of North Carolina's September 21,
2009, infrastructure submission for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. The comments fall generally into the following categories: (1)
States' inability to rely on CAIR to satisfy the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) apparent
lack of guidance from EPA on how states should meet the requirements;
(3) concerns regarding the procedure of taking action to disapprove
North Carolina's submittal; (4) acknowledgement of states' efforts and
air quality conditions; and (5) concerns related to the Transport Rule.
A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.

States' Inability to Rely on CAIR to Satisfy the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Requirements for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

    Comment 1: The Commenters express concern with EPA's proposed
disapproval and assert that states should be able to rely on CAIR to
address the transport requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The Commenters explain that
the Court left CAIR in place and opine that states should be able to
rely on emissions reductions from CAIR to address transport. One
Commenter also mentions that ``[t]he Court did not impose a schedule on
EPA for completing the Transport Rule; therefore, states have no
assurances that EPA will ever replace the CAIR rule. Since there is no
guarantee that the Transport Rule will be promulgated in a timely
manner, states cannot rely on the reductions in the proposed Transport
Rule and must rely on the CAIR reductions, which are permanent and
enforceable.''
    Response 1: As discussed in EPA's 2009 Guidance, states cannot rely
on the CAIR rule for the submission for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR does not address this NAAQS, and
was never intended to address this NAAQS. CAIR was originally put in
place to address the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. In
order to adequately address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), states can only rely on permanent emission
reductions to address transport for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and
must include an appropriate technical demonstration.

Apparent Lack of Guidance From EPA on How States Should Meet the
Requirements

    Comment 2: Both Commenters note that that 110(a)(2) infrastructure
SIPs for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were due September 21,
2009, but EPA's guidance was not released to the states until September
25, 2009.
    Response 2: While EPA's 2009 Guidance regarding the 110(a)(2)
infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS was
released on September 25, 2009, this guidance did not establish new
requirements beyond those already required by section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. Relevant portions of section 110(a)(2)
require, as follows, ``Each [implementation plan submitted by a State
under this chapter] shall * * * contain adequate provisions--(i)
prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, any
source or other type of emissions activity within the State from
emitting

any air pollutant in amounts which will--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 * * *'' States are statutorily obligated to address
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. This above-quoted provision provides States
with the requirement.
    Comment 3: The Commenters express concern about communication in
the SIP process. The Commenters go on to say that ``[e]ven though EPA's
guidance was released only a short time later, EPA Region 4 gave
absolutely no indication to its co-regulators that there would be a
fatal flaw with the submittal.'' The commenter further states that,
``it wasn't until a year later that states were informed via an e-mail
on August 27, 2010, that `All Region 4 states submitted complete
infrastructure SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and our
intention is to disapprove the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of those
unless it is withdrawn by the state.' ''
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenters' assertion that they
were initially notified in an August 27, 2010, e-mail about EPA's
expectations and concerns with states' submissions reliance on CAIR to
meet the requirements for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As was explained above, North Carolina's
obligation stems from the CAA. As is EPA's practice, EPA reminded the
States on a number of occasions of the interstate transport obligations
in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In addition to the informal reminders (via e-
mail and teleconferences, among other avenues), EPA's January 2011
proposal served as a formal, legal notification and provided for a
formal opportunity for public comment.
    Although EPA reminded states of EPA's expectations and concerns
with states' reliance on CAIR to meet the requirements for section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in an
August 27, 2010, e-mail, EPA formally notified states of the
expectations and concerns in the EPA's 2009 Guidance. Specifically, EPA
noted that SIP submissions that relied on CAIR for satisfying the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS would be inadequate, as CAIR did not address this NAAQS. EPA's
proposed disapproval of the portion of North Carolina's September 21,
2009, submission did not occur until January 2011, which was over a
year after EPA's notification (through the release of the EPA's 2009
Guidance) of any states' deficiency for meeting the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirement for the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS had that state
relied on CAIR. Thus, North Carolina had notification and an
opportunity to provide supplemental information between the release of
EPA's 2009 Guidance and EPA's proposed disapproval action in January
2011.
    Comment 4: One Commenter raises concerns with EPA treating its 2009
Guidance as ``binding'' and suggests that this action is contrary to
statements made by EPA in support of EPA and states being ``co-
regulators.''
    Response 4: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that the
proposed disapproval is contrary to EPA treating the states as co-
regulators. As was explained earlier, EPA has regular contact with its
state co-regulators. With regard to the proposed disapproval action,
EPA corresponded with North Carolina regarding the September 21, 2009,
submittal prior to the proposed disapproval. In the past several
months, EPA has corresponded with North Carolina on a number of
occasions regarding other SIP revisions and EPA's consideration of
those revisions--as is EPA's typical practice to support the co-
regulator relationship.
    Further, EPA notes that the January 26, 2011, proposed disapproval
of North Carolina's September 21, 2009, submission as it relates to
satisfying the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is based on EPA's determination that North
Carolina did not provide adequate information to demonstrate compliance
with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS for North Carolina. No new requirements
were introduced in EPA's 2009 Guidance. This guidance simply provided
additional clarifications but the CAA requirements existed long before
North Carolina's September 21, 2009, deadline for a SIP submission.
    Comment 5: One Commenter mentions that ``EPA has not stated the
amount of reduction they believe is needed to satisfy the transport
requirements. Not only is this a situation where EPA moves the finish
line (by releasing guidance AFTER the due date), the finish line isn't
even knowable (because EPA refuses to inform the states how much
reduction is enough to satisfy the requirements). EPA seems to say that
it has to be whatever the final Transport Rule says, even though there
is no final Transport Rule.''
    Response 5: EPA disagrees with this comment. As was explained
earlier, the state obligation stems from the CAA itself. As co-
regulators, EPA makes efforts to assist states in submitting approvable
revisions--and EPA took such action with EPA's 2009 Guidance. States
had an opportunity to conduct their own analyses regarding interstate
transport. Section 110(a)(2) requires that the state's submission
contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions from the state that
contribute significantly to nonattainment of or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state. In order to ensure
compliance with the CAA's mandate of ``adequate'' provisions, the
state's SIP revision must be supported by an adequate technical
analysis, including, but not limited to, information concerning
emissions in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and the
potentially impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the
state and the potentially impacted states, the distance to the nearest
area that is not attaining the NAAQS in another state, and air quality
modeling. EPA appreciates that North Carolina has initiated the process
of such an analysis (which is included in North Carolina's comment
letter).
    Comment 6: One Commenter notes EPA's statement in the January 26,
2011, proposed disapproval where the Agency states: ``* * * without an
adequate technical analysis EPA does not believe that states can
sufficiently address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The Commenter mentions that they, and
possibly other states, were precluded from providing the necessary
technical analysis by EPA because EPA did not release the guidance
until after the SIP submission deadline. Further, the Commenter notes
that EPA did not provide specific criteria for the technical analysis
in the EPA's 2009 Guidance, and mentions that ``[h]ad EPA provided
adequate criteria for an approvable SIP in a timely manner, it is
likely that [the state] would have been able to submit an approvable
SIP by the statutory deadline.'' The Commenter included a technical
analysis as part of their comments on the proposal.
    Response 6: EPA does not agree with the Commenter's assertions. As
was explained earlier, the SIP submission requirement is identified in
the CAA. In addition, States were alerted that a technical analysis
that involved modeling and permanent, enforceable emission reductions
could be used to make an adequate demonstration to satisfy the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone
NAAQS when EPA promulgated CAIR in 2005. Due to the legal status of
CAIR, states relying on CAIR as permanent were taking a risk given
EPA's proposed Transport Rule and the court decision

on CAIR. Further, states were officially informed that the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS could not be satisfied by reliance on CAIR (since that rule did
not consider the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS) when EPA released
EPA's 2009 Guidance. The submittal by North Carolina relied on CAIR and
it did not include an adequate technical analysis--despite EPA's
efforts to alert states that mere reliance on CAIR, on its own, would
not meet the CAA requirements.
    Consistent with section 110 of the CAA and implementing regulations
at 40 CFR part 51, and as a general matter, ``adequate technical
analyses'' are a cornerstone of ensuring that SIP revisions are
approvable. EPA has addressed the timing of information in previous
comments, but to underscore that point, EPA alerted states formally
upon the release of the EPA's 2009 Guidance that CAIR could not be used
to meet the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, there are formal SIP revision
requirements described in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. EPA does not agree
that North Carolina's comments on the January 2011 disapproval proposal
may be considered a ``SIP revision;'' nonetheless, EPA did review the
comments as was described above. Further information regarding the path
forward following today's action is described below.
    Upon disapproval of North Carolina's submittal, EPA has a legal
obligation, pursuant to the Act, to promulgate a FIP. Section 110(a)(1)
of the Act requires states to submit SIPs that meet certain
requirements within three years of promulgation of a NAAQS. These SIPs
are required to contain, among other things, adequate provisions
``prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this subchapter, 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.'' Section 110(a)(1) gives the
Administrator authority to prescribe a period shorter than three years
for the states to adopt and submit such SIPs, but does not give the
Administrator authority to lengthen the time allowed for submission.
    Section 110(c)(1) of the Act, in turn, requires EPA to promulgate
FIPs if EPA has found that the state has failed to make a required
submission or if EPA has disapproved a state submission our found it to
be incomplete. Specifically, section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to
promulgate a FIP within two years after the Administrator ``(A) finds
that a state has failed to make a required submission or finds that the
plan or plan revision submitted by the state does not satisfy the
minimum criteria established under subsection (k)(1)(A) of this section
or (B) disapproves a state implementation plan submission in whole or
in part.'' The Act uses mandatory language, finding that EPA shall
promulgate a FIPs at any time within 2 years after the actions
identified 110(c)(1)(A) or 110(c)(1)(B) have occurred. EPA's legal
obligation to promulgate FIPs arises when those actions occur without
regard to the underlying reason for the underlying state SIP
deficiency. The obligation to promulgate a FIP must be discharged by
EPA unless two conditions are met: (1) The state corrects the
deficiency; and (2) the Administrator approves the plan or plan
revision, before the Administrator promulgates the FIP.
    Under this statutory scheme, EPA has authority and an obligation to
promulgate a FIP to correct a SIP deficiency if the actions identified
in section 110(c)(1)(A) or (B) have been taken, and the two conditions
identified in 110(c)(1) have not been met. The question of whether EPA
has authority to promulgate any particular FIP, therefore, must be
considered on a state specific basis.
    EPA disagrees with the Commenter's suggestion that the rule is
inconsistent with the CAA because it does not give states time to
develop, submit and receive EPA approval of SIPs before the FIP goes
into effect. Section 110(a)(2) calls on states to submit SIPs that
contain adequate provisions prohibiting the emissions proscribed by
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, when EPA has not received such SIP
submission or has disapproved a SIP submission, it has an obligation
created by section 110(c)(1) to promulgate a FIP that meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA does not believe it has
authority to adjust the deadlines established in the Act in order to
give states additional time, after promulgation of the Transport Rule,
to submit SIPs that comply with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA does
not believe it has authority to alter the statutory requirement that it
promulgate FIPs within two years of making a finding of failure to
submit. EPA sought to discharge this duty with respect to the states
covered by CAIR for the PM2.5 NAAQS by promulgating CAIR;
however, the Court found that rule unlawful and not sufficiently
related to the statutory mandate of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). For
this reason, EPA does not believe it could argue that the CAIR FIPs
completely discharged its duty to promulgate FIPs with respect to the
states whose section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs are disapproved.
    EPA is following the SIP process established in the statute. The
110(a) SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 standard were due in 2009. In
each case, states were given the full 3 years to meet the requirement.
The Transport Rule provides the FIP to fulfill the requirement that was
unmet by the states through SIPs. EPA is required to promulgate a FIP
within 2 years of a state's failure to have an approved SIP. States
were in fact given the first chance to fulfill the requirement of
Section 100(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA's action is subsequent to the State's
opportunity to first fulfill the requirement.
    EPA has made every attempt to smooth the transition between the
requirements of CAIR and those of the forthcoming Transport Rule. For
future requirements, EPA will also make every effort to address
transition issues. However, EPA cannot ignore its statutory obligations
and therefore cannot ensure that no new requirements will be placed on
the sources being regulated by this action. Every time a NAAQS is
revised, there is a statutory obligation for states to submit SIPs to
address certain CAA requirements. If states fail to meet the deadlines
or submit incomplete or inadequate SIPs, EPA must act to ensure that
the requirements are put into place.
    Even though EPA is issuing a FIP, the State still has the
opportunity to submit a SIP that can tailor requirements to the
specific needs and concerns of the State in order to meet the
applicable state budgets. Prior to this action, states had ample time
under the provisions of the CAA to develop and submit approvable SIPs
and did not. No state affected by the Transport Rule has submitted a
SIP to replace the emission reductions that were required by CAIR,
despite the North Carolina opinion issued in December 2008 that clearly
said CAIR did not adequately address 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). While the
remand left CAIR in place and states and sources were required to
continue to comply with it, states had the opportunity to develop
replacement measures to ensure that 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) components of
their SIPs would continue to be fulfilled in the future.

Objection to the Use of Disapproval Actions for States' Implementation
Plans

    Comment 7: Two Commenters express concerns about EPA's proposed
disapproval and indicate that EPA had an obligation to use section
110(k)(5) of the CAA. One Commenter states: ``EPA continues to be
resistant to exploring a legislative approach to fixing some of the SIP
issues, yet the correct process under the existing Clean Air Act to
appropriately address this issue is not being used.'' The Commenter
goes on to state: ``Section 110(k) requires that when EPA finds a plan
to be inadequate, EPA shall (1) require the state to revise the plan,
(2) notify the state of the inadequacy, and (3) may establish
reasonable deadlines not to exceed 18 months.'' Additionally, the
Commenter mentions that in their opinion, ``The proposed disapproval
completely ignores 1 and 3 and only partially
satisfies 2. Regarding 2, the EPA proposal simply
states EPA's position that the SIP is inadequate, but fails to notify
us `of the inadequacy.' '' The Commenter asserts that ``* * * EPA still
has failed to provide any specificity on what is required of a state to
submit an approvable SIP,'' and mentions that ``These Clean Air Act
requirements are not discretionary, and that `EPA must comply with the
provisions of Section 110(k)(5) by providing a reasonable period of
time to allow [the state] to satisfy the inadequacy and sufficient and
timely instructions on what is required to revise the plan instead of
relying on a theoretical FIP as the sole remedy.' '' The Commenter
concludes by stating that ``EPA may not take final action on this
proposal until it complies with Section 110(k)(5) of the Clean Air
Act.''
    Response 7: The issues raised in this comment are also addressed by
Response 6, above. To further clarify what is included in Response 6,
North Carolina's September 21, 2009, submission relating to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS is being
disapproved pursuant to sections 110(k)(2) and (3) of the CAA, not
section 110(k)(5). Section 110(k)(5) is applicable to SIPs that have
been federally-approved, and are subsequently found to be substantially
inadequate. This is not the case for North Carolina's September 21,
2009, submission relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS as the September 21, 2009, submission was
provided to EPA for a new requirement that was triggered by the
promulgation of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in 2006. EPA is
required under section 110(k)(3) to act upon a state submittal with an
approval or disapproval, within the time period designated under
section 110(k)(2). With this action, EPA is disapproving North
Carolina's September 21, 2009, submission relating to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because EPA has made the determination that the
North Carolina SIP does not satisfy these requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. North Carolina's submission is inadequate for
its failure to meet the statutory requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as
noted above. The State can correct the deficiency by submitting a
transport SIP that meets the provisions of the forthcoming Transport
Rule or otherwise eliminates significant contribution and interference
with maintenance. See Response to Comment 6.
    Comment 8: One Commenter expresses concern about EPA's statement in
the January 26, 2011, proposed disapprovals regarding the Agency not
taking action on some elements of the states' 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 infrastructure submissions, and notes the Agency's
statutory timeframe for taking action on SIP submissions. Specifically,
the Commenter cites the following statement from EPA's January 26,
2011, proposed rule: ``[t]herefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove
those provisions which relate to the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration
and to take no action on the remainder of the demonstration at this
time.'' The Commenter mentions that EPA is ``clearly in violation of
Clean Air Act Section 110(k)(2)'' by not taking action on the remainder
of the states' submissions.
    Response 8: In this action, EPA is disapproving certain elements of
the State's submission related to the requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA has also determined that these elements are
severable from the rest of the submission. Comments on elements that
are not being addressed here are not relevant to this action. As noted
herein, EPA intends to act on those elements in a subsequent action.
See Response to Comment 6 for additional information.
    Comment 9: One Commenter indicates that EPA could use section
110(k)(4) to conditionally approve the states' implementation plans for
the transport requirements related to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in anticipation of the promulgation of the final Transport Rule,
``[a]ssuming EPA adequately addresses modeling and emissions inventory
concerns raised during the comment period * * *''
    Response 9: EPA does not agree that the use of 110(k)(4) for a
conditional approval is appropriate in this circumstance. Conditional
approvals may be used to approve a plan revision based on a written
commitment of the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a
date certain, but not later than 1 year after the date of approval of
the plan revision. If the State does not adopt specific enforceable
measures within a year, the conditional approval automatically converts
to a disapproval. The forthcoming Transport Rule is an action that is
being promulgated from EPA and not the State, so it is unclear what
``condition'' the State would be responsible for satisfying by relying
on the final promulgation of the Transport Rule. Further, as the
Commenter implies, use of 110(k)(4) is optional. See Response to
Comment 6 for additional information.

Acknowledgement of States' Efforts and Air Quality Conditions

    Comment 10: Both Commenters mention innovative air pollution
control strategies that states have implemented to reduce emissions,
and seem to indicate that the adoption of those strategies, in-and-of
itself, complies with the interstate transport provisions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
Commenters opine that state laws and rules have resulted in enormous
reductions of pollutants that are key pollutants to interstate
transport.
    Response 10: EPA agrees that states have implemented innovative air
pollution control strategies that have provided significant reductions
in emissions, and the Agency commends states for their efforts.
However, today's action relates to whether North Carolina has provided
an adequate technical analysis and emissions reductions to show
compliance with the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS for North Carolina. It is EPA's final
determination that North Carolina's September 21, 2009, submission does
not provide an adequate technical analysis and emissions reductions for
this determination and thus EPA is disapproving the portion of North
Carolina's September 21, 2009, submission as it relates to the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS for North Carolina.

Concerns Related to the Transport Rule

    Comment 11: One Commenter expresses concern regarding EPA's
statement in the January 26, 2011, proposed disapproval regarding the

modeling used to support the proposed Transport Rule, and the findings
in relation to whether states significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in downwind areas. The Commenter states that ``based on 2007-2009
monitoring data, all of these areas are currently meeting the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' and expresses concern that EPA did not
note the area's status with regard to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in the proposal. The Commenter goes on to say ``we noted in our
official comments on the proposed Transport Rule, EPA had numerous
errors in the modeling inputs and failed to ensure that the model
performance was acceptable. This may explain the disparity between
EPA's modeling results and the real world monitors.''
    Response 11: Today's action relates to whether the State provided
an adequate technical analysis and emissions reductions to show
compliance with the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS for North Carolina, and is not based on the
attainment status of North Carolina areas. North Carolina did not
provide an adequate technical analysis to EPA to demonstrate compliance
with the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. With regard to the Commenter's concern about
the forthcoming Transport Rule, EPA notes that the Agency received
numerous comments on the proposed Transport Rule and is considering
those comments as it works toward promulgation of a final Transport
Rule. All comments on the Transport Rule will be addressed in that
context.
    Comment 12: Both Commenters assert that EPA's proposed finding of
significant contribution for the proposed Transport Rule is based on an
inaccurate emissions inventory, fails to take into account all of the
reductions required by the state rules already in effect, and contains
numerous other errors that only compound these problems.
    Response 12: EPA received numerous comments on the proposed
Transport Rule and is considering those comments as it works toward
promulgation of a final Transport Rule. All comments on the Transport
Rule will be addressed in that context.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to disapprove the portion of North
Carolina's September 21, 2009, submission, relating to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), because EPA has made the determination that North
Carolina SIP does not satisfy the requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Although EPA is taking final action to
disapprove the portion of North Carolina's September 21, 2009,
submission relating to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), EPA acknowledges the
State's efforts to address this requirement in its September 21, 2009,
submission. Unfortunately, the submittal relies on CAIR and without an
adequate technical analysis EPA does not believe that states can
adequately address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The purpose of the Transport Rule that EPA
is developing and has proposed is to respond to the remand of CAIR by
the Court and address the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the affected states. In
today's action, EPA is not taking any disapproval action on the
remaining elements of the submission, including other section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements, and specifically the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) portion regarding interference with measures
required in the applicable SIP for another state designed to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality and protect visibility but
instead will act on those provisions in a separate rulemaking.
    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. 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.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions (the provisions being disapproved
in today's notice) were not submitted to meet requirements for Part D,
and therefore, no sanctions will be triggered. This final action
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. The
proposed Transport Rule, when final, is the FIP that EPA intends to
implement to satisfy the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement for North
Carolina for the 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. 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 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 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 SIP disapproval 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 disapproves certain state requirements
for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The 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 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 final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This SIP
disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA will
not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply disapproves
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 disapproval does
not mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA continues 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 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 disapproval 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 disapproves 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 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 disapproves
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 action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is disapproving 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
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it 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 SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D
of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but
simply disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into the
SIP.

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

    This 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 (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the 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 the Office of Management and Budget,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. EPA believes that this action
is not subject to 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, February 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 action merely 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.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 28, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1781 is amended by adding paragraph (g), to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1781  Control strategy: Sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (g) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving portions of North Carolina's
Infrastructure SIP for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
addressing interstate transport, specifically with respect to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

[FR Doc. 2011-18000 Filed 7-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 60831]
[DOCID:fr26oc07-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR08-2-000]

Acacia Natural Gas Corporation; Notice of Petition for Rate
Approval

October 18, 2007.
    Take notice that on October 12, 2007, Acacia Natural Gas
Corporation (Acacia) filed a petition for rate approval for NGPA
section 311 maximum interruptible transportation rates equal to 12.23
cents per MMBtu, pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's
regulations, with a proposed effective date of January 1, 2008.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. October 31, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-21150 Filed 10-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 114)]
[Notices]
[Page 33445]
[DOCID:fr12jn08-92]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1763-DR]

Iowa; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1763-DR), dated May 27, 2008, and related
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of May 27, 2008.

    Black Hawk and Buchanan Counties for Public Assistance and
Individual Assistance.
    Butler County for Public Assistance (already designated for
emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.)
    Delaware County for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidential Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidential Declared
Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050, Presidential Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-13206 Filed 6-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22023-22024]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Reduction of
Fuel Tank Flammability on Transport Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on January 28, 2013, vol. 78, no. 18, page 5860. The FAA's
Fuel Tank Flammability rule requires manufacturers to report to the FAA
every six months for up to 5 years after the flammability reduction
system is incorporated into the fleet. The data is needed to assure
system performance meets that predicted at the time of certification.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 13, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0710.
    Title: Reduction of Fuel Tank Flammability on Transport Category
Airplanes.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Design approval holders use flammability analysis
documentation to demonstrate to their FAA Oversight Office that they
are compliant with the Fuel Tank Flammability Safety rule (73 FR
42443). Semi-annual reports submitted by design approval holders
provide listings of component failures discovered during scheduled or
unscheduled maintenance so that the reliability of the flammability
reduction means can be verified by the FAA.
    Respondents: Approximately 5 design approval holders.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 4,000 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 3, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-08549 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 62528-62529]
[DOCID:fr12oc10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

September 29, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1145-001.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Southern Natural Gas Company submits substitute tariff
section which includes the revision to Standard 1.3.45 pursuant to
Order No. 587-U Compliance Amendment, to be effective 11/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/24/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100924-5181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 6, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1331-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.205(b): Amendment--Non-Conforming--Jay-Bee to be effective 10/
1/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100928-5303.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1346-001.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.205(b): Amendment--Non-Conforming BlueStone to be effective 10/
1/2010.

    Filed Date: 09/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100928-5342.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-987-003.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing
per 154.203: Non-Conforming--UGI--Compliance--Errata to be effective 8/
23/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/28/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100928-5436.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-1083-002.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company submits tariff
filing per 154.203: Revised Baseline Electronic Tariff to be effective
8/16/2010.
    Filed Date: 09/29/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100929-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 12, 2010.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25559 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P