[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47485]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2699-000]

Minco Wind Energy III, 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
Minco Wind Energy III, 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 September 8, 2021.
    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 may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 19, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18298 Filed 8-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Notices]
[Page 48739]
[DOCID:fr11au10-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket OST-2009-0249]

Application of Gulf Coast Airways, Inc. for Commuter Air Carrier
Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2010-8-4), Docket OST-
2009-0249.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Gulf
Coast Airways, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and awarding it commuter
air carrier authority to conduct scheduled commuter service.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
August 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Docket DOT-OST-2009-0249 and addressed to Docket Operations, (M-30,
Room W12-140), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, and should be served upon the
parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine O'Toole, Air Carrier Fitness
Division (X-56, Room W86-489), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 5, 2010.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-19758 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


commenter for our proposed approval of the State's SIP. While we found
Entergy's modeling and methodology to be flawed, we also conducted our
own CAMx modeling which LDEQ included in its SIP submission as an
appendix.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Letter dated April 15, 2016, from Kelly McQueen to Guy
Donaldson Re Supplement to BART-Related Submittals Provided in
Response to CAA Section 114(a) Information Requests for Entergy
Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy Gulf States.
    \103\ October 2017 LA RH SIP, Appendix F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Legal

    Comment: LDEQ stated it disagreed with EPA's use of the phrase
``adopted and incorporated'' when referring to the analysis provided to
LDEQ by EPA. It stated that it places all documents and information
submitted to it in connection with the development of the SIP in an
administrative record. Such placement in the record does not indicate
that LDEQ agrees with or has adopted positions, conclusions, or
decisions, nor has incorporated them into the SIP revisions submitted
to EPA. The final SIP document and any enforceable conditions included
therein encompass the final decision by LDEQ.
    Response: EPA recognizes that LDEQ independently reached the final
determination presented in its Nelson RH SIP. We did not intend to
imply that we substituted our own judgment for LDEQ's. When reviewing a
SIP to determine whether it meets the

applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, EPA considers the
final SIP document as well as any accompanying supporting documents or
appendices that have been submitted by the State. Reviewing the
supporting documents and appendices assists EPA in determining how the
State reached its final conclusion, and thus, helps determine whether
the final conclusion meets the applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements. We also note that in the SIP revision submitted to EPA in
October 2017, LDEQ stated that the ``. . . SIP is being revised to
include the EPA information.'' \104\ This indicates that LDEQ
considered the information provided by EPA when making its
determination. It is thus appropriate for EPA to similarly rely on this
information in our final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Louisiana Regional Haze State Implementation Plan: EGU
BART Analysis, June 19, 2017, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: LDEQ disagreed with the solicitation of comments on
Entergy's cost per ton figure by EPA. LDEQ stated that it conducted its
own public comment period and any comments submitted on this point are
procedurally improper.
    Response: While it is correct that LDEQ conducted its own public
comment period, this does not relieve EPA of its duty under the
Administrative Procedure Act to provide the public with notice of its
proposed rulemaking and an opportunity to comment.
    Comment: After finding that the Entergy analysis on which the State
relies is unverifiable and unsupported by the facts before the agency--
which demonstrate that a new scrubber would be both cost effective and
significantly improve visibility--EPA inexplicably proposed to approve
the State's BART determination. EPA's proposal is the quintessential
example of an agency decision that is inconsistent with the evidence
before the agency, and it would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to
finalize its proposal. See North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th
Cir. 2013) (citing Ala. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v EPA, 540 U.S.
461, 485, 490 (2004)) (EPA must ensure that the state's regional haze
plan is ``reasonably moored to the Act's provisions'' and based on
``reasoned analysis'' of the facts).
    Response: In our proposal we noted that we were unable to verify
the cost analysis submitted by Entergy because it was based on a
propriety database.\105\ However, as stated in our proposed rule, we
developed our own BART analysis, including a control cost analysis,
which was reviewed by LDEQ and submitted as an appendix to LDEQ's SIP
submission \106\ and considered in LDEQ's weighing of the five factors
in reaching its determination regarding controls at Nelson. Thus, LDEQ
included in its SIP and considered information adequate to provide a
basis for its decision. As stated in a previous response, EPA reviews
all information submitted by the State along with any other relevant
publicly available information in determining whether its SIP
submission is approvable, including any appendices or other supporting
documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ 82 FR 32294, 32298 (July 13, 2017).
    \106\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The State also failed to consult with the Federal Land
Managers regarding the proposed BART determination for Nelson Unit 6.
This violates the statutory and regulatory requirements that each state
consult with the Federal Land Managers prior to holding a public
hearing on the SIP and that the State include in the public notice a
summary of the Federal Land Managers' recommendations. EPA must
disapprove the SIP submission based on the State's violation of the
BART Guidelines and the consultation requirements. ``Before holding the
public hearing on the proposed revision of an applicable implementation
plan to meet the requirements of this section, the State . . . shall
consult in person with the appropriate Federal land manager or managers
and shall include a summary of the conclusions and recommendations of
the Federal land managers in the notice to the public.'' 42 U.S.C.
7491(d). EPA may not approve a plan which violates applicable Clean Air
Act requirements, and therefore EPA must disapprove the plan based
solely on the State's violation of the consultation requirements.
    Response: As evidenced by the letter sent to LDEQ by the Fish and
Wildlife Service,\107\ LDEQ consulted with the appropriate Federal Land
Mangers regarding its RH SIP submission. In its general comments, the
Fish and Wildlife Service stated that more information was needed to
determine the validity of LDEQ's conclusions and recommended that LDEQ
include the information it relied upon in reaching its decision. In
reference to Nelson, the Fish and Wildlife Service stated that it was
aware that more information was available and that it would be
interested in reviewing this information. Subsequently, LDEQ submitted
an addendum to its SIP to include the analyses conducted by EPA. LDEQ
provided the updated information, as requested, to the Fish and
Wildlife Service via email on July 12, 2017.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See, Letter from the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service to Vivian Aucoin, December 14, 2016.
    \108\ Appendix A of the October 2017 Louisiana Regional Haze
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The only outcome consistent with EPA's findings in the
record is for EPA to disapprove the State's analysis and issue a
federal implementation plan for SO2 BART setting emission
limits consistent with the operation of a new scrubber.
    Response: As explained in previous responses, EPA reviewed the
State's entire submission, including any attached appendices and
supporting documentation, as a whole in determining whether the State's
submission is approvable. After reviewing the relevant information, we
determined that the State's SIP is approvable.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ See our proposed rule for our full analysis. 82 FR 32294
(July 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The State expressly notes that in reaching its decision,
it relied on Entergy's analysis.\110\ EPA has an independent obligation
to ensure that the State's analysis complies with the Clean Air Act.
See Ala. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. at 485
(upholding EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act as authorizing EPA
to ``review permits to ensure that a State's BACT determination is
reasonably moored to the Act's provisions''); North Dakota v. EPA, 730
F.3d at 761 (extending the holding of Alaska Dep't of Envtl.
Conservation to EPA's role under the haze provisions of the Clean Air
Act); Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1208 (10th Cir. 2013) (``Given
that the statute mandates that the EPA must ensure SIPs comply with the
statute, we fail to see how the EPA would be without the authority to
review BART determinations for compliance with the guidelines.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ LA RH SIP October 2017 at p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: In its SIP, LDEQ states, ``LDEQ has weighed the five
factors and after a review of both Entergy's and EPA's information. .
.'' \111\ This indicates that the State reviewed all the information it
received from both Entergy and the EPA. As stated in a previous
response, LDEQ indicated in its SIP that it was revising its previous
submission to include the additional information provided by EPA. This
further indicates that the State considered this information in its
determination. While we did note the errors that were present in
Entergy's analysis, we also stated that we conducted our own analysis
in

accordance with the applicable regulations and provisions of the Act,
and provided this information to LDEQ.\112\ With the inclusion of the
information from EPA, LDEQ had adequate information to make its
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ LA RH SIP Revision Addendum, June 19, 2017, p. 6.
    \112\ 82 FR 32294, 32298-32299 (July 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: EPA's proposal violates the procedural requirement of the
Clean Air Act that EPA place in the public rulemaking docket the data
on which the proposed rule relies. The Act requires that a proposed
rule include a summary of the ``factual data on which the proposed rule
is based,'' 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(3)(A), and such ``data . . . on which the
proposed rule relies shall be included in the docket on the date of
publication of the proposed rule.'' Id. sec. 7607(d)(3). EPA proposed
to approve the State's BART determination, which relies on Entergy's
BART analyses. Therefore, EPA's proposed rule also relies on Entergy's
BART analyses, yet factual data from Entergy's BART analyses are not
included in the docket, namely, the proprietary database for
calculating scrubber costs, 82 FR at 32298, and ``model inputs, such as
emissions or stack parameters'' and ``worksheets utilized for post-
processing, or any of the actual CAMx modeling files.'' Appendix F,
CAMx Modeling TSD at 30. By failing to include this data in the
rulemaking docket, EPA has violated 42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(3). See Kennecott
Corp. v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1007, 1018 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (``If that argument
be factually based, the financial analyses clearly form a basis for the
regulations and should properly have been included in the docket. In
all events, absence of those documents, or of comparable materials
showing the nature and scope of its prior practice, makes impossible
any meaningful comment on the merits of EPA's assertions.''). Entergy's
consultant, Trinity, failed to provide fundamental information
concerning its visibility modeling. ``Trinity did not provide model
inputs, such as emissions or stack parameters, or provide worksheets
utilized for post-processing, or any of the actual CAMx modeling files
so our review is limited only to general description [sic] of the
modeling protocol provided in the various CAMx modeling reports
provided by Entergy.'' Draft SIP, Appendix F, CAMx Modeling TSD at 30.
    Response: As stated in previous responses, EPA conducted its own
cost and modeling analyses and submitted them to LDEQ for its
consideration. LDEQ considered the information provided by EPA\113\ as
well as that provided by Entergy \114\ in making its final BART
determination based upon weight of evidence. LDEQ stated in its
February 2017 SIP submission that it did not have the expertise with
which to review the summary of the CAMx modeling analysis provided by
Entergy.\115\ LDEQ further stated in its June 2017 parallel processing
proposed submission that it did not use the results of the CAMx
modeling provided by Entergy to determine whether the units in question
have satisfied the BART requirements.\116\ EPA reviewed the modeling
inputs, approach and the model results that were available in Entergy's
submitted analysis that were part of the LDEQ's June 2017 proposal.
With this information, EPA was able to determine that the modeling was
not consistent with the BART guidelines and should not be relied
upon.\117\ Thus, the underlying information used to generate the CAMx
modeling summary in Entergy's analysis is not required to be placed in
the docket.\118\ After reviewing the relevant information, we
determined that the State's SIP is approvable. All of the information
EPA relied on its determination was made available in the docket during
the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ LA RH SIP, October 2017, Appendix F.
    \114\ Id. at Appendix D.
    \115\ LA RH SIP EGU BART Analysis, February 2017, p. 16.
    \116\ LA RH SIP Revision Addendum, June 19, 2017, p. 5.
    \117\ See the CAMx Modeling TSD and the Modeling RTC for
additional information.
    \118\ We note that the summary of the CAMx modeling conducted by
Entergy was included as part of LA's SIP submission and was
available in the docket for review. The summary contained sufficient
information for EPA to review Entergy's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. CSAPR-Better-Than-BART

    Comment: Louisiana's proposal unlawfully exempts sources from
installing BART controls without going through the exemption process
Congress prescribed. The visibility protection provisions of the Clean
Air Act include a ``requirement'' that certain sources ``install, and
operate'' BART controls. 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A). Congress specified
the standard by which sources could be exempted from the BART
requirements, which is that the source is not ``reasonably anticipated
to cause or contribute to a significant impairment of visibility'' in
any Class I area. Id. sec. 7491(c)(1). Appropriate federal land
managers must concur with any proposed exemption. Id. sec. 7491(c)(3).
Neither EPA nor Louisiana has demonstrated that the Louisiana EGUs
subject to BART meet the standards for an exemption. Nor has EPA or the
state obtained the concurrence of federal land managers. Therefore,
Louisiana must require source-specific BART for each power plant
subject to BART.
    Response: To the extent the comment is directed to the prior rules
that determined and re-determined that CSAPR is better than BART and
may be relied upon as an alternative to BART, we disagree that relying
on CSAPR is in conflict with the CAA provision regarding exemptions
from BART. In addition, the commenter's objection does not properly
pertain to this action, but instead to our past action that established
40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). We believe this comment to fall outside of the
scope of our action here. To the extent the comment objects to BART
alternatives generally, we also disagree. In addition, that objection
does not properly pertain to this action, but instead to our past
regulatory action that provided for BART alternatives.
    Comment: Even if Louisiana could meet a BART statutory exemption
test, the state cannot rely on CSAPR because of flaws in the rule that
purport to show that CSAPR makes more reasonable progress than BART
(the ``Better than BART'' rule). EPA's regulations purport to allow the
use of an alternative program in lieu of source-specific BART only if
the alternative makes ``greater reasonable progress'' than would BART.
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). To demonstrate greater reasonable progress, a
state or EPA must show that the alternative program does not cause
visibility to decline in any Class I area and results in an overall
improvement in visibility relative to BART at all affected Class I
areas. Id. Sec.  51.308(e)(3)(i)-(ii). Here, EPA claims that its 2012
``Better than BART'' rule demonstrated that CSAPR achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. See 77 FR 33642.
    EPA compared CSAPR to BART in the Better than BART rule by using
CSAPR allocations that are more stringent than now required as well as
by using presumptive BART limits that are less stringent than required
under the statute.\119\ These assumptions tilted the scales in favor of
CSAPR. It would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to rely on such an
inaccurate, faulty comparison to conclude that CSAPR will achieve
greater reasonable progress than will BART. Even under EPA's skewed
comparison, CSAPR achieves barely more visibility improvement than BART
at the Breton and Caney Creek National Wilderness Areas. If EPA had
modeled accurate BART limits and up-to-date CSAPR allocations, then EPA

would likely find that CSAPR would lead to less visibility improvement
than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See 2011 Comments at 20-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in detail in the attached briefing regarding the
still-pending litigation challenging EPA's Better than BART rule, the
Better than BART rule not only fails to meet the Clean Air Act's
statutory requirements for a BART exemption but also fails to account
for the geographic and temporal uncertainties in emissions reductions
under CSAPR.\120\ We also submit and incorporate our February 28, 2011
comments and our supplemental March 27, 2012 comments on the Better
than BART Rule, which are relevant to EPA's proposal to rely on CSAPR
as a BART alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See Conservation Groups' Opening Brief, Util. Air
Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, No. 12-1342, ECF Doc. 1666640 (D.C. Cir.
filed Mar. 17, 2017), Exhibit 3 of Sierra Club's June 19, 2007
comment letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, EPA's Better than BART determination fails to account for
the inherent uncertainties in emissions reductions under CSAPR. BART is
a technology that must be installed and operated year-round, and a
corresponding emission limit that must also be met year-round. BART
emissions limits must be met on a ``continuous basis. '' See 42 U.S.C.
7602(k) (emphasis added). By contrast, CSAPR allows trading of
emissions allowances between sources, including between sources in
different states, rather than imposing a fixed emission limit for each
source. EPA's assessment of CSAPR Better than BART does not and cannot
assess the unknown impact of complex trading under CSAPR on the Class I
areas affected by Louisiana sources.
    EPA cannot lawfully rely on the Better than BART rule because the
rule is based on a version of CSAPR that no longer exists. Accordingly,
any conclusion that EPA made in the 2012 Better than BART rule
regarding whether CSAPR achieves greater reasonable progress than BART
is no longer valid. Since 2012, EPA has significantly changed the
allocations and the compliance deadlines for CSAPR. Of particular
relevance here, after 2012, EPA increased the total ozone season CSAPR
allocations for every covered EGU in Louisiana. 77 FR 34830, 34835
(June 12, 2012). EPA also extended the compliance deadlines by three
years, such that the phase 1 emissions budgets take effect in 2015-2016
and the phase 2 emissions budgets take effect in 2017 and beyond. 79 FR
71663 (Dec. 3, 2014).
    In addition to EPA's increased emissions budgets and extended
compliance timeline, the D.C. Circuit's decision in EME Homer City
Generation v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 130-32 (D.C. Cir. 2015), which
invalidated the SO2 or NOX emission budgets for
thirteen states, has fundamentally undermined the rationale underlying
EPA's Better than BART rule. Specifically, the Court invalidated the
2014 SO2 emission budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South
Carolina, and Texas, and the 2014 NOX emission budgets for
Florida, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. Id.
at 124. Of particular relevance here, the D.C. Circuit invalidated the
CSAPR budgets for Texas, Alabama, and Georgia, which most impact
visibility at Louisiana's Class I area. As explained in our initial
brief in the still-pending challenge to the CSAPR Better than BART
rule, the effect of Homer City is to pull the rug out from under EPA's
BART exemption rule. This remains true even though some states have, in
the wake of Homer City, opted in to CSAPR in lieu of issuing source-
specific BART determinations. Texas, the state with the most
SO2 emissions, has not opted in to CSAPR after the Homer
City court remanded the CSAPR SO2 budgets for Texas, and
therefore the CSAPR Better than BART Rule rests on facts which no
longer exist. These assumptions underpinned EPA's finding that CSAPR
was Better than BART. It would be arbitrary and capricious for EPA to
now rely on the same assumptions, a blatantly inaccurate, outdated,
faulty comparison to conclude that CSAPR will achieve greater
reasonable progress than will BART. Even under EPA's skewed comparison,
CSAPR barely achieved more visibility improvement than BART at the
Breton and Caney Creek National Wilderness Areas. If EPA had modeled
accurate BART limits and the modified CSAPR allocations as per the D.C.
Circuit decision, then EPA would likely find that CSAPR would lead to
less visibility improvement than BART.
    Response: As we had proposed, our finalized determination that
CSAPR participation will resolve NOX BART requirements for
Louisiana EGUs is based on a separately proposed and finalized action.
This comment falls outside of the scope of our action here.
    Comment: Louisiana's reliance on CSAPR Better than BART is unlawful
because the emissions reductions achieved by CSAPR in Louisiana are
limited to five months of the year--the ozone season. Given that any
controls that might be installed to meet CSAPR are not required to be
operated year-round, CSAPR does nothing to protect the affected Class I
areas during the remaining seven months of each year. In fact, as noted
in EPA's Technical Support Document and in the National Park Service's
comments on EPA's proposed disapproval of Louisiana's 2008 SIP, the
adverse impacts of Louisiana NOX emissions on visibility are
highest in the winter months--i.e., outside of the ozone season. Letter
from Susan Johnson, Department of the Interior to Guy Donaldson, EPA
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2008-0510-0017, at 2 (Mar. 28, 2012),
attached as Exhibit 4. Thus, NOX emissions reductions that
are effective only during the ozone season will not address the
visibility impact due to wintertime ammonium nitrate at Breton Island
or other Class I areas in neighboring states.
    Even within the five-month ozone season, CSAPR allows for temporal
variability such that a facility could emit at high levels within a
shorter time period, creating higher than anticipated visibility
impacts. Because of the high degree of variability and flexibility,
power plants may exercise options that would lead to little or no
emission reductions. For example, a facility in Louisiana might
purchase emission credits from a source beyond the air shed of the
Class I area the Louisiana source impairs. Because CSAPR requirements
only pertain to the Louisiana source for a fraction of the year, that
source may be even more incentivized to purchase emission credits from
elsewhere than a source in a fully covered CSAPR state. Thus, without
knowing which Louisiana EGUs will reduce pollutants by what amounts
under CSAPR, or when they will do so, and because these emissions
reductions are applicable for less than half the year, Louisiana simply
cannot know the impact of CSAPR upon Breton and other affected Class I
areas.
    For these reasons, reliance on CSAPR to satisfy the NOX
BART requirements is unlawful. EPA should disapprove Louisiana's
reliance on CSAPR to satisfy the NOX requirements, and issue
a FIP with source-specific BART determinations for NOX.
    Response: We disagree with this comment, but also note that it
should not be directed to this action but rather to the past rulemaking
determination that provided BART coverage for pollutant trading under
CSAPR as specified at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). In any event, the argument
that BART must be based on ``continuous'' control does not transfer to
the application and operation of a BART alternative. Sources that would
operate under an annual trading program that provides tons per year
allocations for a unit are not necessarily applying ``continuous''
controls either.

In fact, they are also free to operate seasonally or with intermittent
use of controls so long as they operate within the allocation or
purchase allowances whenever emissions may exceed that allocation. We
necessarily disagree that EPA regulations would bar seasonal emissions
reductions to satisfy requirements for a BART alternative.
    Comment: Louisiana purports to satisfy the regulatory requirements
for a BART alternative by relying on ozone-season budgets for
NOX that no longer exist. To rely on CSAPR as an alternative
to BART, Louisiana must demonstrate that the version of CSAPR that is
now in effect, and will be in effect at the time of the final rule,
makes greater reasonable progress than BART. Having failed to make that
demonstration, Louisiana has not met its burden to show that CSAPR will
achieve greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART. See 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2), (3). More troubling, Louisiana's reliance on the
CSAPR ``Better than BART'' rule fails to account for, or even mention,
the possibility that CSAPR or the ``Better than BART'' rule will not
exist in any form when the SIP is finalized.
    Response: As we had proposed, our finalized determination that
CSAPR participation will resolve NOX BART requirements for
Louisiana EGUs is based on a separately proposed and finalized action.
On September 29, 2017, we affirmed our proposed finding that the EPA's
2012 analytical demonstration remains valid and that participation in
CSAPR, as it now exists, meets the Regional Haze Rule's criteria for an
alternative to BART.\121\ This comment falls outside of the scope of
our action here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 82 FR 45481 (September 29, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: EPA need not wait to finalize this element of the Proposed
Rule until the Agency finalizes its proposed finding that CSAPR
continues to be better than BART despite the removal of Texas from the
annual NOX and SO2 trading programs.\122\ EPA has
performed technical analyses supporting its conclusion that the ozone
season NOX trading program remains ``better than'' BART
despite the removal of Texas from the annual programs, which supports a
final action in this rulemaking.\123\ Further, this Proposed Rule
provides sufficient public notice and opportunity to comment on whether
CSAPR participation appropriately satisfies NOX BART
requirements for Louisiana EGUs. In light of this, EPA should determine
in this rulemaking that participation in CSAPR satisfies BART for
NOX emissions from Louisiana's EGUs. At the very least, EPA
should finalize its proposal that CSAPR remains better than BART \124\
in an expeditious manner, so that it can finalize this portion of the
Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Proposed Rule, at 22938 (citing Proposed Rule, Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter: Revision of Federal
Implementation Plan Requirements for Texas, 81 FR 78954 (Nov. 10,
2016) (Proposed Texas Interstate Transport FIP)).
    \123\ Proposed Rule, Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; State of Texas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility
Transport Federal Implementation Plan, 82 FR 912, 946 (Jan. 4, 2017)
(``EPA's actions in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand would not
adversely impact our 2012 demonstration that CSAPR is better than
BART''); Proposed Texas Interstate Transport FIP at 78954.
    \124\ Proposed Texas Interstate Transport FIP, 81 FR 78954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We have finalized our proposed rule finding that CSAPR
continues to be better than BART despite the removal of Texas from the
annual NOX and SO2 trading programs,\125\ so this
comment is no longer relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 82 FR 45481 (September 29, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress

    Comment: The proposal unlawfully fails either to approve a
corrected long-term strategy or to issue a federal implementation plan
(``FIP'') containing a proper long-term strategy as required by the CAA
and federal regulations. Regardless of whether the previous version of
the Regional Haze Rule or the Revised Regional Haze Rule governs this
rulemaking, the requirements are the same: EPA is obligated to consider
the four statutory factors to determine whether controls are needed at
non-BART sources in order to make reasonable progress regardless of
whether such measures are needed to attain reasonable progress goals or
the uniform rate of progress. See 82 FR 3078, 3080, 3090-91 (Jan. 10,
2017); 79 FR 74818, 74828-30 (Dec. 16, 2014). EPA's proposal does not
contain a reasonable progress analysis which considers these four
factors for non-BART sources, such as Dolet Hills. The Revised Regional
Haze Rule (82 FR 3078) explicitly brings the long-term strategy
regulations in line with the statutory command to contain measures as
necessary to make reasonable progress. Under the new requirements,
``[t]he long-term strategy must include the enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress, as determined pursuant to
(f)(2)(i) through (iv).''
    EPA's proposal provides no evidence that the State submitted a
revised submittal which ``evaluate[d] and determine[d] the emission
reductions measure that are necessary to make reasonable progress'' by
evaluating the four statutory factors. Nor is there any evidence of
criteria the State used to evaluate which sources should be evaluated
in the reasonable progress analysis, and how the four factors were
considered. In comments we submitted to the State, we noted that under
any reasonable criteria for screening sources, Dolet Hills should be
evaluated under the long-term strategy requirements. See Letter from
Joshua Smith, Sierra Club to Vivian Aucoin, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality at 7-11 (Dec. 14, 2016), attached as Exhibit 5.
Cleco Power's lignite-fired Dolet Hills Power Station is one of the
largest sources of visibility-impairing SO2 and
NOX emissions in Louisiana. States and EPA routinely use a
Q/D analysis as an initial screening method for determining which
sources should be analyzed using the four factors. Using this approach,
EPA, the states, and federal land managers generally conduct modeling
for any source that has a Q divided by D threshold of 10 or more. Using
Dolet Hills's average annual SO2 and NOX
emissions from 2000-2016, Dolet Hills easily meets the Q/D threshold
for additional modeling based on impacts to Breton National Wilderness
Area and Caney Creek National Wilderness Area. For example, the Q/D for
Dolet Hills based on annual SO2 emissions (17,907 tpy) and
distance to Breton (500 km) would be 35.8.
    Based on the Q/D analysis, EPA was required to issue a FIP applying
the four factors to Dolet Hills to determine whether additional
emissions reductions are necessary at Dolet Hills to make reasonable
progress. EPA's failure to do so violates the statute and the
implementing regulations. The Stamper Report also provides a rough
estimate of what such a four-factor analysis would look like for Dolet
Hills for SO2. First, there is ample support for requiring
reasonable progress controls at Dolet Hills within a reasonable amount
of time--no more than five years--just as EPA did for similar sources
in the Texas reasonable progress FIP. Second, as EPA has recognized,
the SO2 control technologies of wet and dry FGD systems are
widely used at coal-fired power plants all over the United States, and
any energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of these controls
are vastly outweighed by the benefits of significant reductions of air
pollutants. Third, the Dolet Hills Power Plant began operation in 1986,
and Cleco Power has indicated that the expected lifetime of

the unit is sixty years. In any event, because there is no enforceable
requirement or deadline for retirement, EPA must assume that the
remaining useful life of the plant is 30 years--i.e., the life of the
SO2 pollution controls evaluated.
    Finally, it is clear that a new wet FGD system at Dolet Hills would
be cost effective. Assuming a 98% SO2 removal efficiency, or
a 0. 04 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission rate, and applying EPA's
standard cost assumptions (i.e., a 7% interest rate; 30-year life,
etc.), the cost of a new wet FGD scrubber at Dolet Hills would be
approximately $1,710/ton, which is well within EPA's range of
reasonable BART costs. Moreover, emissions from the lignite-fired Dolet
Hills power plant are currently responsible for significant visibility
impairment at a number of Class I areas, including a more than 1.0
deciview (``dv'') baseline impact at Caney Creek. Gray Report at 6,
Table 5. The modeling also demonstrates that installation of
SO2 controls at Dolet Hills, such as a replacement wet FGD
system, would dramatically improve the visibility at all modeled Class
I areas. Indeed, the installation of a wet FGD scrubber at Dolet Hills
would improve visibility at Caney Creek by 0.799 dv, relative to
baseline 2000-2004 emissions. Moreover, a wet FGD system would result
in almost a 0.5 dv improvement at Breton Island in Louisiana, and more
than 0.5 dv improvement at Wichita Mountains and the Upper Buffalo.
Overall cumulative delta dv impacts across six Class I areas would be
reduced from 4.23 to 0.93--a cumulative improvement of 3.30 dv.
    In sum, the installation of a new WFGD system at Dolet Hills would
be well within the range of costs that EPA has deemed reasonable and
cost effective. Moreover, the installation of a new wet FGD system a
Dolet Hills would result in a significant and noticeable change in
visibility on the peak impact days at several Class I areas.
Consequently, EPA must evaluate whether additional emission reductions
at Dolet Hills are necessary to ensure reasonable progress toward the
national goal.
    Response: In 2012, we proposed to find that Louisiana's Long Term
Strategy (LTS) for the first planning period was deficient given our
proposed finding that certain of Louisiana's BART determinations were
not fully approvable. ``In general, the State followed the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1), but these goals do not reflect appropriate
emissions reductions from BART.'' \126\ We finalized that action, which
specifically disapproved the State's LTS, but only insofar as it relied
on deficient BART determinations.\127\ With this final action, we are
approving all of LDEQ's SIP submittals, including the ones submitted
after the 2008 SIP submittal, which have cured the deficiencies in the
2008 SIP revision submittal as identified in our 2012 action that
related to BART, thus correcting the deficiencies in the LTS portion of
the SIP as well. We note that the Regional Haze Rule requires states to
submit periodic comprehensive SIP revisions that will continue to
assess measures needed to achieve reasonable progress; the next SIP
revision is due in 2021. We also note that the Revised Regional Haze
Rule referenced by the commenter makes changes to the requirements that
states have to meet for the second and subsequent implementation
periods, but the revised rule is not applicable to this SIP
submittal.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ 77 FR 11856 (Feb. 28, 2012).
    \127\ 77 FR 39426 (July 3, 2012).
    \128\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Compliance Date for Nelson

    Comment: The three-year compliance date for Nelson Unit 6 does not
meet the Clean Air Act requirement that BART controls be installed as
expeditiously as practicable. There is no specific technical or
economic evidence in the record to support a three-year compliance
date. The record indicates that Entergy is likely meeting the 0.6 lbs/
MMBtu limit now. On September 28, 2017, Entergy's counsel wrote to EPA
that ``You asked whether the Nelson plant currently is meeting an
emission rate of 0.6 lbs/MMBtu. The answer is that Nelson 6 generally
is emitting at levels below that level, with periodic exceptions when
the sulfur content is higher.'' \129\ In addition, Entergy's reported
monthly emissions data over the last several years clearly indicate
that ``Entergy has been able to consistently purchase coal with a
sulfur content that would enable the Nelson Unit to comply with the
0.60 lbs./MMBtu level.'' \130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ Email from William Bumpers to EPA (Sept. 18, 2017), EPA
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0129-0041.''
    \130\ See EPA, BART Modeling and Cost Information Technical
Assistance Document at 15 (attached as App'x F to Louisiana SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even if Nelson is not currently meeting the proposed SO2
limit, Entergy's counsel represented to EPA that Nelson could meet the
0.6 lbs/MMBtu limit in 2018 and 2019 if the limit was an annual average
rather than a 30-day rolling average.\131\ In the same message,
Entergy's counsel stated that Nelson could meet the 0.6 lbs/MMBtu
limit, with a 30-day rolling average, ``for 2020.'' \132\ EPA's stated
rationale for the deadline extension--that Entergy needs three years to
comply--is contradicted by Entergy's statement that it could meet a 30-
day rolling average of 0.6 lbs/MMBtu beginning in 2020. Entergy
represents that it would ``be difficult for Nelson to assure compliance
with an emission limit of 0.6 lbs/MMBtu before 2020.'' \133\ Entergy
stated that it was unable to blend fuel, yet this is contradicted by
the record. The Company has been ``consistently'' purchasing low-sulfur
coal and ``blending them in its feed stream for a number of years.''
\134\ Entergy did not explain what equipment it had on site, what
equipment it believes would be necessary to blend coal, and how much
the necessary equipment would cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ Email from William Bumpers to EPA (Sept. 18, 2017), EPA
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0129-0041 (``If Nelson were given an
annual limit of 0.6 lbs/MMBtu for 2018 and 2019, transitioning to a
30-day rolling average for 2020, Entergy Louisiana believes it could
achieve such limits.'').
    \132\ Id.
    \133\ Id.
    \134\ See BART Modeling and Cost Information Technical
Assistance Document at 6, 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Entergy could accept penalties for cancelling
portions of its 2018 and 2019 contracts. Entergy did not provide any
information about the penalties of cancelling the contract. It would
have been able to submit this information to EPA and claim it as
confidential business information. Neither the State nor EPA considered
any other alternatives to extending the compliance deadline by three
years. There is no evidence in the record for this amendment that the
State or EPA considered the costs for Entergy to purchase the low-
sulfur coal and fuel blending equipment necessary to meet the
compliance deadline before 2020. Nor is there any evidence that the
State or EPA considered alternatives such as lengthening the averaging
time for the 0.6 lbs/MMBtu limit for 2018 and 2019. Inexplicably, no
consideration was given to the proposal that Entergy itself made: An
annual limit for 2018 and 2019, followed by a 30-day rolling average
for 2020.
    Response: In a letter dated October 26, 2017 \135\ sent to LDEQ and
EPA during the respective comment periods, Entergy stated that though
it had recently been receiving lower sulfur

coal, the sulfur content can vary greatly since its current contract
limits the sulfur coal delivered to 1.2 lbs/MMBtu. Entergy further
stated that it does not have the equipment necessary to blend fuel
which limits its ability to manage variable fuel supplies. Thus, it
would not be able to consistently meet the 0.6 lbs/MMBtu emission limit
that has been determined to be BART prior to the expiration of its
current contracts. BART is required to be installed and operational as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than five years
after the approval of the SIP. The State took the circumstances at
Entergy into account and determined that a compliance period of three
years met this requirement. Under the company's current contract, the
company could potentially receive coal that violates the limit.
Therefore, it is reasonable for company to have time to enter into new
contracts with new specifications. Further, the commenter raises the
possibility of an annual limit that would be in place sooner. Annual
limits, however, are generally not considered appropriate for BART
which targets improvements on the days of maximum impact from the
source. EPA has reviewed all the information in the SIP submittal and
finds that the state has made a reasoned determination that meets the
applicable requirements and therefore is approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Letter from Kelly McQueen to Samuel Coleman, Re: Proposed
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0129,
October 26. 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    We are approving revisions to the Louisiana SIP submitted on June
13, 2008, August 11, 2016, February 10, 2017, and October 26, 2017, as
supplemented October 9, 2017, as meeting the regional haze requirements
for the first planning period. This action includes the finding that
the submittals meet the applicable regional haze requirements as set
forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.300-308. The
EPA is approving the SIP submittals with the supplemental information
as meeting the following: The core requirements for regional haze SIPs
found in 40 CFR 51.308(d) such as the requirement to establish
reasonable progress goals, the requirement to determine the baseline
and natural visibility conditions, and the requirement to submit a
long-term strategy; the BART requirements for regional haze visibility
impairment with respect to emissions of visibility impairing pollutants
from non-EGUs and EGUs in 40 CFR 51.308(e); and the requirement for
coordination with state and Federal Land Managers in Sec.  51.308(i).
For the BART requirements, we are approving LDEQ's determination that
the BART-eligible sources at the following facilities do not cause or
contribute to visibility impairment and are not subject to BART:
Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government Houma Generating Station
(Houma), Louisiana Energy and Power Authority Plaquemine Steam Plant
(Plaquemine), Lafayette Utilities System Louis ``Doc'' Bonin Generating
Station, Cleco Teche, Entergy Sterlington, NRG Big Cajun I, and NRG Big
Cajun II. We are also approving LDEQ's reliance on CSAPR to meet the
NOX BART requirement for EGUs. We are approving the
following Agreed Orders on Consent that make the source-specific BART
emission limits enforceable for the subject to BART units at the
following facilities:

 Phillips 66 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) No. AE-AOC-
14-00211A
 Mosaic AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00274A
 EcoServices AOC No. AE-14-00957 and through the applicability
of the New Source Performance Standards for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40
CFR part 60, subpart H)
 Entergy Willow Glen AOC--February 2017 LDEQ submittal,
Appendix D
 Cleco Brame Energy Center AOC--February 2017 LDEQ submittal,
Appendix B
 Entergy Little Gypsy AOC--February 2017 LDEQ submittal,
Appendix D
 Entergy Ninemile Point AOC--February 2017 LDEQ submittal,
Appendix D
 Entergy Waterford AOC--February 2017 LDEQ submittal, Appendix
D
 Entergy Nelson AOC--October 2017 LDEQ submittal, Appendix D

We are approving the following AOC that limits the emissions such that
the units at the facility are not subject to BART:

 NRG Big Cajun II AOC--February 2017 LDEQ submittal, Appendix C

Our approval addresses all of the deficiencies identified in our
previous actions on the 2008 SIP revision.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Final Action
section above. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 6 Office (please contact Ms. Jennifer Huser for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the
Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation (62 FR
27968, May 22, 1997).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because

application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA;
and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 20, 2018. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Interstate
transport of pollution, Regional haze, Best available retrofit
technology.

    Dated: December 14, 2017.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. In Sec.  52.970:
0
a. Paragraph (d) is amended by revising the heading for ``Permit
number'' to ``Permit or order number'' in the table titled ``EPA-
Approved Louisiana Source-Specific Requirements'' and by adding new
entries at the end of the table; and
0
b. Paragraph (e) is amended by adding a new entry for ``Louisiana
Regional Haze'' at the end of the second table titled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures''.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.970   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                                   EPA-Approved Louisiana Source-Specific Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                State
                                                                                approval/
            Name of source                           Permit or order number                effective       EPA approval date             Comments
                                                                                date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Phillips 66 Alliance Refinery........  Administrative Order on Consent No. AE-AOC-14-       4/29/2016  12/21/2017, [Insert       .......................
                                        00211A.                                                         Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
EcoServices LLC......................  EcoServices AOC No. AE-14-00957 and through the       8/8/2016  12/21/2017, [Insert       .......................
                                        applicability of the New Source Performance                     Federal Register
                                        Standards for Sulfuric Acid Plants (40 CFR part                 citation].
                                        60, subpart H).
Mosaic...............................  Mosaic AOC No. AE-AOC-14-00274A..................     6/6/2016  12/21/2017, [Insert       .......................
                                                                                Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
NRG Big Cajun II.....................  In the Matter of Louisiana Generating LLC, Point      2/9/2017  12/21/2017, [Insert       Units 1 and 2.
                                        Coupee Parish, Big Cajun II Power Plant.                        Federal Register
                                                                                citation].
Cleco Power, LLC Brame Energy Center.  In the Matter of Cleco Power, LLC, Rapides            2/9/2017  12/21/2017, [Insert       Unit 1 (Nesbitt 1) and
                                        Parish, Brame Energy Center.                                    Federal Register          Unit 2 (Rodemacher 2).
                                                                                citation].
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Little Gypsy   In the Matter of Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Little      2/13/2017  12/21/2017, [Insert       Units 2, 3, and the
 Generating Plant.                      Gypsy Generating Plant, St. Charles Parish.                     Federal Register          Auxiliary Boiler.
                                                                                citation].
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Ninemile       In the Matter of Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Ninemile     2/9/2017  12/21/2017, [Insert       Units 4 and 5.
 Point Electric Generating Plant.       Point Electric Generating Plant, Jefferson                      Federal Register
                                        Parish.                                                         citation].

Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Waterford....  In the Matter of Entergy Louisiana, LLC,              2/9/2017  12/21/2017, [Insert       Units 1 and 2.
                                        Waterford 1 & 2 Electrical Generating Plant, St.                Federal Register
                                        Charles Parish.                                                 citation].
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Willow Glen    In the Matter of Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Willow       2/9/2017  12/21/2017, [Insert       Units 2, 3, 4, 5, and
 Generating Plant.                      Glen Generating Plant, Iberville Parish.                        Federal Register          the Auxiliary Boiler.
                                                                                citation].
Entergy Louisiana, LLC, R. S. Nelson   In the Matter of Entergy Louisiana, LLC, R. S.      10/26/2017  12/21/2017, [Insert       Units 4, 6, and the
 Generating Plant.                      Nelson Generating Plant, Calcasieu Parish.                      Federal Register          Unit 4 Auxiliary
                                                                                citation].                Boiler.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                                           EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                State
                                                                                submittal
          Name SIP provision              Applicable geographic or nonattainment area        date/         EPA approval date           Explanation
                                                                                effective
                                                                                date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Louisiana Regional Haze..............  Statewide........................................    6/13/2008  12/21/2017, [Insert       Supplemental
                                                                                8/11/2016   Federal Register          information provided
                                                                                2/10/2017   citation.                 10/9/2017 regarding
                                                                                10/26/2017                             Entergy Louisiana,
                                                                                LLC, Michoud Electric
                                                                                Generating Plant,
                                                                                Units 1, 2, and 3,
                                                                                Permit no. 2140-00014-
                                                                                V4, effective 4/28/15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.985 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.985   Visibility protection.

    (a) Measures addressing best available retrofit technology (BART)
for electric generating unit (EGU) emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX).
The BART requirements for EGU NOX emissions are satisfied by
Sec.  52.984.
    (b) Other measures addressing BART. The BART requirements for
emissions other than EGU NOX emissions are satisfied by the
Louisiana Regional Haze SIP approved December 21, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-27452 Filed 12-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 40 (Monday, March 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11261-11262]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0144; Notice 2]

General Motors, LLC; Ruling on Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Ruling on petition.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM) has determined that certain model
year 2013 Chevrolet Malibu passenger cars manufactured between June 21,
2011 and July 24, 2012, do not fully comply with paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>
(a) and (b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102,
Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and
Transmission Braking Effect. GM has filed an appropriate report dated
August 3, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. GM's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), GM submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of GM's petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 30, 2013, in the Federal Register
(78 FR 60019.) No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2012-0144.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 23,910 model year
2013 Chevrolet Malibu passenger cars manufactured between June 21, 2011
and July 24, 2012.
    III. Noncompliance: GM explains that the noncompliance is that in
the subject vehicles, because the primary shift lever position
backlight in the console shift indicator can fail to illuminate, the
transmission shift position selected in relation to the other gears is
not always provided under the required conditions specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>
(a) and (b).
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> (a) and (b) of FMVSS No. 102
specifically states:

    S3.1.4 Identification of shift positions and of shift position
sequence.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Except as specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>, if the transmission
shift position sequence includes a park position, identification of
shift positions, including the positions in relation to each other
and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver
whenever any of the following conditions exist:
    (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be
shifted; or
    (b) The transmission is not in park.

    V. Summary of GM's Analyses: GM stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the
following reasons:
    1. There is minimal risk that the operator will shift the vehicle
out of park without being aware that the transmission shift position
sequence display is not illuminated since the condition can only be
initiated at key-up (engine crank). The condition cannot be initiated
while driving.
    2. The condition corrects on the next ignition cycle. Throughout
our investigation it never repeated on consecutive ignition cycles.
    3. The gear selected is always provided in a redundant display
located in the instrument panel (IP) cluster.
    a. The up-level IP cluster is utilized in 85% of the vehicle
production and displays the gear selected in relation to the other
gears for 3 seconds whenever the vehicle is shifted. After 3 seconds
the IP cluster displays only the gear selected.
    b. 15% of production has the base IP cluster which displays only
the gear selected.
    4. The system is designed to minimize the risk that the operator
will shift to an unintended gear.
    a. When shifting, a secondary motion (button push on shifter) is
required to help prevent mis-shift. A button on the shift lever must be
depressed when shifting from:
    i. PARK to any other gear:
    ii. REVERSE to any other gear: or
    iii. DRIVE to PARK or REVERSE
    b. NEUTRAL gear selection from DRIVE does not require a secondary
motion (button push on shifter), making location of NEUTRAL easier in a
panic situation.
    c. The gear selected is provided as a secondary display in the IP
cluster and the shifter in the subject vehicle utilizes a linear shift
pattern (used on U.S. vehicles for more than 50 years). Since the
relationship between PARK, REVERSE, NEUTRAL and DRIVE is well
understood by the driving public, this should assist the operator in
determining the shift lever's position in relationship to the other
gear positions even when not illuminated.
    d. Brake Transmission Shift Interlock (BTSI) helps to assure the
driver is not caught unaware when shifting from PARK since the operator
must first apply the brake.
    e. On the subject vehicles miss-shifting is prevented while the
vehicles are in motion. At speeds above 10 MPH, shifting from DRIVE to
REVERSE or PARK; or shifting from REVERSE to PARK or DRIVE, is
electronically inhibited.
    5. The frequency of the condition occurring is rare and random.
    a. As of 25 July 2012, there were only ten reported incidents which
occurred on seven of 285 captured test fleet (CTF) vehicles. The
condition was reported twice on two of the CTF vehicles and did not
occur on consecutive ignition cycles.
    b. During the investigation, it took more than a week of testing
during which approximately 1000 ignition cycles were conducted on each
of four CTF vehicles reported to have the condition in order to
recreate the occurrence.
    c. Warranty claims as of 25 July 2012
    i. U.S. Warranty 3 of 8,573 vehicles
    ii. China Warranty 2 of 11,872 vehicles
    iii. Korea Warranty 3 of 4,968 vehicles
    d. None of the Warranty claims or CTF reports indicated that the
operator had experienced a mis-shift condition.
    e. No claims were discovered related to injury or crash.
    f. As of August 1, 2012, GM found no Vehicle Owner's Questionnaires
(VOQs) resulting from the subject condition during its search of the
NHTSA database.
    6. GM stated its belief that NHTSA granted a similar petition in
the past.
    On August 16, 2013 GM additionally informed NHTSA in an email
message that it corrected the noncompliance on August 3, 2012 so that
all future production would comply with FMVSS No. 102.
    In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as

required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    VI. NHTSA's Decision: NHTSA has reviewed GM's analyses that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. GM
has identified an intermittent condition during which the automatic
transmission positions on the console-mounted transmission control will
not be illuminated at key startup. FMVSS No. 102, paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>
requires the indicator to display identification of an automatic
transmission's positions, including the position selected and the
positions in relation to each other in view of the driver. FMVSS No.
101, paragraph S5.3.1(b) and Table 1 require the automatic transmission
control position indicator to be illuminated whenever the headlamps are
activated. GM stated that the failure of illumination is very rare, has
occurred only at startup (not during driving), and has never been found
to repeat on consecutive ignition cycles. However, when it does occur,
the transmission position indicator on the console will not be
illuminated throughout that operating period. The indicator identifies
P,R,N,D or M (M1-M6) and, except when the noncompliance occurs at key
startup, is illuminated as required.
    FMVSS No. 102 paragraph S3.1.4 permits a redundant display
providing some or all of the required information. GM identified two
instrument clusters used in the affected vehicles that provide
different amounts of redundant information. The transmission position
selected is always displayed on both clusters. In addition, for
vehicles other than the base model (approximately 15 percent of the
affected vehicles), the cluster display includes the position selected
and the positions in relation to each other for three seconds whenever
the transmission is shifted.
    The redundant display on the cluster identifies the transmission
position selected for all affected vehicles. It is likely that drivers
will become accustomed to looking at the instrument cluster rather than
looking down at the console to confirm the desired transmission
position, i.e., ``D,'' has been selected. So the lack of illumination
on the console at startup may go unnoticed. In a panic situation, an
inexperienced driver may not be familiar with the other positions,
i.e., how to shift from ``D'' to ``N'' to recover control of the
vehicle if an unintended acceleration occurs. Since the cluster of 85
percent of the vehicles displays this information for 3 seconds after
every shift, this frequent reminder is considered sufficient to alert
the driver about the relationship to the other transmission positions.
The 15 percent (base models) are not so equipped and present an
unreasonable risk to safety.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that for all
except the base model vehicles, GM has met its burden of persuasion
that the subject FMVSS No. 102 noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM's petition is hereby partially
granted and GM is exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for the subject noncompliance for the
non-base model Malibu vehicles (approximately 85 percent of the
affected vehicles) under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    For the base model Malibu vehicles (approximately 15 percent of the
affected vehicles), NHTSA has decided that GM has not met its burden of
persuasion that the FMVSS No. 102 noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, for those vehicle's GM's petition is
hereby denied and GM is obligated to provide notification of, and a
remedy for, the subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the 23,910 model year 2013 Chevrolet Malibu passenger
cars that GM no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control
after GM notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015-04150 Filed 2-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 56 (Monday, March 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16270-16271]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA included flood hazard
mapping data dissemination determinations as part of the NFIP
Nationwide Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, published on
November 3, 2017, and completed in accordance with the Council on
Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act implementing
regulations in 40 CFR 1500-1508 and therefore has determined that this
action will not have a significant effect on the human environment.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

David I. Maurstad,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD) +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                    (NAVD) # Depth in
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced   feet above ground     Communities affected
                                                 elevation              [supcaret]
                                                                       Elevation in
                                                                       meters (MSL)
                                                                         modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Snohomish County, Washington and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-7705
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skykomish River........................  Approximately 0.5 miles                  +50  City of Monroe.
                                          southwest of the
                                          intersection of 183rd
                                          Avenue SE and 176th
                                          Street SE.
                                         Approximately 0.7 miles                  +69
                                          southwest of the
                                          intersection of Highway
                                          2 and 227th Avenue.
Skykomish River........................  Approximately 0.9 miles                  +47  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of State Route                 +89   Snohomish County.
                                          522.
                                         Approximately 0.4 miles
                                          southeast of the
                                          intersection of Highway
                                          2 and Fern Bluff Road.
Snohomish River........................  Just upstream of State                   +43  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Route 522.                              +47   Snohomish County.
                                         Approximately 0.9 miles
                                          upstream of State Route
                                          522.
Snoqualmie River.......................  Approximately 0.9 miles                  +47  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of State Route                 +50   Snohomish County.
                                          522.
                                         At the boundary with King
                                          County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
# Depth in feet above ground.
[supcaret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

Addresses

    City of Monroe: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall,
Engineering Department, 806 West Main Street, Monroe, WA 98272.
    Unincorporated Areas of Snohomish County: Maps are available for
inspection at Snohomish County Planning and Development Services, 3000
Rockefeller Avenue, Everett, WA 98201.

[FR Doc. 2020-05501 Filed 3-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 110 (Friday, June 9, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26746]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0369]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges) Bridge
across Rockaway Inlet, mile 3.0, at Queens, NY. This action is
necessary to complete bridge maintenance and repairs. This deviation
allows the bridge to remain in the closed position.

DATES:  This modified deviation is effective without actual notice from
June 9, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2017. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from May 13, 2017 at 5 p.m.
until June 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0369 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
212-514-4334, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation in order to
facilitate replacement of lift span machinery. The Marine Parkway (Gil
Hodges) Bridge across Rockaway Inlet, mile 3.0 at Queens, New York has
a vertical clearance of 55 feet at mean high water and 59 feet at mean
low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating
regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.795(a).
    The temporary deviation will allow the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges)
Bridge to remain in the closed position from 5:01 p.m. May 13, 2017 to
11:59 p.m. June 30, 2017.
    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational traffic as well
as commercial vessels, largely tug and barge combinations. The 55 foot
vertical clearance while the bridge is in the closed position offers
the bulk of commercial traffic sufficient room to transit the
navigation opening of the structure even when in the closed position.
Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at
all times. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for vessels unable to pass
through the bridge when in the closed position.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: May 23, 2017.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-12045 Filed 6-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10715-10716]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0123; Notice 1]

Volkswagen Group of America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Volkswagen Group of America (Volkswagen), has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2015-2016 Volkswagen e-Golf and Golf R
passenger cars do not fully comply with paragraphs S4.3(c) and S4.3(d)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire
Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load
Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. Volkswagen filed a report dated
November 25, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Volkswagen then petitioned
NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is March 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: Logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Volkswagen submitted a petition
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Volkswagen's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 4,965 MY 2015-
2016 Volkswagen e-Golf passenger vehicles that were manufactured
between May 21, 2014 and November 14, 2015 and approximately 4,618 MY
2015-2016 Volkswagen Golf R passenger vehicles that were manufactured
between October 24, 2014 and November 14, 2015.
    III. Noncompliance: Volkswagen explains that the noncompliance is
that the tire placard, located on the driver's side B-pillar, was
misprinted and does not contain the word ``none'' in the area reserved
for the spare tire specifications (i.e., size and pressure valves) as
required by paragraphs S4.3(c) and S4.3(d) of FMVSS No. 110.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires in
pertinent part:

    S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete
vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3(a) through
(g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option, the information
specified in S4.3(h) through (i), on a placard permanently affixed
to the driver's side B-pillar . . .
    (c) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation
pressure for front, rear and spare tires, subject to the limitations
of S4.3.4. For full size spare tires, the statement ``see above''
may, at the manufacturer's option replace manufacturer's recommended
cold tire inflation pressure. If no spare tire is provided, the word
``none'' must replace the manufacturer's recommended cold tire
inflation pressure.
    (d) Tire size designation, indicated by the headings ``size'' or
``original tire size'' or ``original size,'' and ``spare tire'' or
``spare,'' for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase
for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the
statement ``see above'' may, at the manufacturer's option replace
the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word
``none'' must replace the tire size Designation;

    V. Summary of Volkswagen's Petition: Volkswagen believes that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
because the misprinted information on the tire placard is applicable to
a component (spare tire) that was not provided with the subject
vehicles. Volkswagen also stated that there is no effect on
drivability, vehicle safety or tire wear.
    Volkswagen also stated that they are not aware of any field or
customer complaints related to the subject noncompliance.
    Volkswagen additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all production of the subject vehicle models on
and after November 14, 2015 will fully comply with FMVSS No. 110.
    In summation, Volkswagen believes that the described noncompliances
of the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt Volkswagen from providing recall
notification of noncompliances as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120
should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or

noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any
decision on this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that
Volkswagen no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control
after Volkswagen notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-04371 Filed 2-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 9230]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

2014 Medical Countermeasures Initiative Regulatory Science
Symposium

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following
meeting: 2014 Medical Countermeasures initiative (MCMi) Regulatory
Science Symposium. The symposium is intended to provide a forum for the
exchange of scientific ideas for medical countermeasure development and
evaluation, communicate progress on regulatory science efforts related
to the development and advancement of medical countermeasures,
facilitate innovative directions, and inform stakeholders on medical
countermeasure-related scientific progress and accomplishments.
    Date and Time: This symposium will be held on June 2 and 3, 2014,
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Persons interested in attending the symposium in
person or viewing via Web cast must register by May 23, 2014, at 5 p.m.
EST.
    Location: The symposium will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room
(Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public
meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1 where
routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and
security information, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.
    Contact: Rakesh Raghuwanshi, Office of Counterterrorism and
Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 4283,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: If you wish to attend the symposium or view via Web
cast, you must register at http://www.fda.gov/medicalcountermeasures by
May 23, 2014, at 5 p.m. EST. When registering, you must provide the
following information: (1) Your name, (2) title, (3) company or
organization (if applicable), and (4) email address.
    There is no fee to register for the symposium and registration will
be on a first-come, first-served basis. Early registration is
recommended because seating is limited. If you need special
accommodations due to a disability, please enter pertinent information
in the ``Notes'' section of the electronic registration form when you
register.

    Dated: February 11, 2014.
Peter Lurie,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. 2014-03358 Filed 2-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P