[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 207 (Thursday, October 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 65244]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26357]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Fearless International, Inc., Glassmaster
Company, Global Entertainment Holdings/Equities, Inc., Global Realty
Development Corp., Global Roaming Distribution, Inc., and Gottaplay
Interactive, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

October 23, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Fearless International, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended December 31, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Glassmaster Company because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended December 3, 2006.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Global Entertainment Holdings/Equities, Inc. because it has not filed
any periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Global Realty Development Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Global Roaming Distribution, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Gottaplay Interactive, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended June 30, 2009.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on October 23, 2012, through 11:59
p.m. EST on November 5, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26357 Filed 10-23-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78650-78655]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25239]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0432; FRL-10121-02-R2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Jersey; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Second
Implementation Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze Staet implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by New
Jersey on March 26, 2020, as satisfying applicable requirements under
the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the
program's second implementation period. New Jersey's SIP submission
addresses the requirement that states must periodically revise their
long-term strategies for making reasonable progress towards the
national goal of preventing any future, and remedying any existing,
anthropogenic impairment of visibility, including regional haze, in
mandatory Class I Federal areas. The SIP submission also addresses
other applicable requirements for the second implementation period of
the regional haze program.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0432. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are

available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas Ferreira, Air Programs
Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Evaluation of Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 26, 2020, the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional
haze for the second implementation period. NJDEP supplemented its SIP
submission on September 8, 2020, and April 1, 2021. NJDEP made this SIP
submission to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze
program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.
    On August 19, 2022, the EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in which the EPA proposed to approve New Jersey's
March 26, 2020, SIP submission, as supplemented on September 8, 2020,
and April 1, 2021, as satisfying the regional haze requirements for the
second implementation period contained in the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308.
See 87 FR 51016. The EPA is now determining that the New Jersey
regional haze SIP submission for the second implementation period meets
the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and is thus
approving New Jersey's submission into its SIP.

II. Evaluation of Comments

    In response to the NPRM, the EPA received eight comments, seven of
which were unique, during the 30-day public comment period and is
providing responses to the comments that were received. The specific
comments may be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0432 on
the https://www.regulations.gov website.
    Comment: Several commentors, including MANE-VU, the Tennessee
Department of Environment & Conservation, and the National Park Service
(NPS), support EPA's proposal to approve New Jersey's regional haze
Staet implementation plan (SIP). One commenter, MANE-VU, also states
that it supports EPA's thorough approach in reviewing New Jersey's SIP,
including its response to each MANE-VU Ask.
    Response: EPA appreciates and agrees with the commentors.
    Comment: Several commentors, including the Tennessee Department of
Environment & Conservation, Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, and North Carolina Division of Air Quality, acknowledge EPA's
assessment and agree with EPA's determination that the Reasonable
Progress Goals (RPGs) cannot include strategies for upwind states that
those upwind states have not adopted.
    Response: As noted in the NPRM, Sec.  51.308(f)(3)(i) specifies
that RPGs must reflect ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures required under paragraph (f)(2) of this
section'' (emphasis added). RPGs are intended to provide a snapshot of
projected visibility conditions at the end of the implementation
period, assuming all measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress at a given class I area are being implemented. The emission
reduction measures that must be reflected in RPGs include adopted
regulations and measures that both the downwind and upwind states have
identified as necessary and that will be implemented by 2028. However,
EPA interprets this provision to exclude emission reduction measures
that downwind states believe are necessary to make reasonable progress
but that upwind states have not, at the time of plan submission,
determined are necessary pursuant to Sec.  51.308(f)(2). This ensures
that RPGs include only those measures that are reasonably certain to be
implemented.
    New Jersey's 2028 RPGs include measures for upwind states that, as
of now, have not been determined to be necessary to make reasonable
progress by those upwind states and are not currently included in their
long-term strategies. Therefore, those RPGs in the New Jersey SIP do
not represent implementation of the measures required under Sec.
51.308(f)(2) and, as a result, do not accurately represent RPGs for
Brigantine Wilderness. New Jersey's 2028 most impaired base case of
18.16 deciviews reflects the visibility conditions that are projected
to be achieved based on states' existing measures. As such, EPA
considers the 2028 modeled base case value of 18.16 deciviews to be a
more appropriate, conservative estimate of the RPG for the 20% most
impaired visibility days as it does not inappropriately rely on highly
uncertain upwind emissions reductions.
    Comment: The commentor, NPS, expresses concern over the use of
MANE-VU's contribution threshold to identify the Class 1 areas New
Jersey impacts beyond its boundaries and believes this threshold is not
adequately protective of cumulative visibility impacts at Class 1 areas
outside of the Staet. The commentor also states that it supports EPA's
recognition that New Jersey emission sources contribute to visibility
impairment for Class I areas beyond the Staet's boundaries, including
at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia.
    Response: In the NPRM, EPA did not expressly determine and
explicitly state that New Jersey significantly contributes to
visibility impairment for Class I areas beyond its boundaries,
including at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia.
    Regarding the analysis and determinations concerning New Jersey's
contribution to visibility impairment at out-of-state Class I areas,
the MANE-VU technical work focuses on the magnitude of visibility
impacts from certain New Jersey emissions on its Class I area and other
nearby Class I areas. Nevertheless, as explained in the NPRM, the
analyses this rulemaking is based on did not account for all emissions
and all components of visibility impairment (e.g., primary PM
emissions, and impairment from fine PM, elemental carbon, and organic
carbon). In addition, as stated in the NPRM, ``Q/d'' analyses \1\ with
a relatively simplistic accounting for wind trajectories and CALPUFF
being applied to a very limited set of electric generating units (EGUs)
and major industrial sources of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) are not scientifically rigorous tools
capable of evaluating contribution to visibility impairment from all
emissions in a Staet. Furthermore, we note in the NPRM that the 2
percent or greater sulfate-plus-nitrate threshold used to determine
whether New Jersey emissions contribute to visibility impairment at a
particular Class I area may be higher than what EPA believes is an
``extremely low triggering threshold'' intended by the statute and
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Q/d'' is emissions (Q) in tons per year, typically of one
or a combination of visibility impairing pollutants, divided by
distance to a class I area (d) in kilometers. The resulting ratio is
commonly used as a metric to assess a source's potential visibility
impacts on a particular class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In sum, as discussed in the NPRM, based on the information provided
in the SIP submission, emissions from New Jersey do contribute to
visibility impairment at Brigantine Wilderness

and have relatively minor contributions to other out-of-state Class I
areas. However, as we indicated in the NPRM, due to the low triggering
threshold intended by the CAA and the RHR and the lack of rigorous
modeling analyses, EPA does not necessarily agree with New Jersey's
conclusion that, based on a 2% contribution threshold, it does not
contribute to visibility impairment at any Class I areas outside the
Staet. While New Jersey noted that the contributions from several
states outside the MANE-VU region are significantly larger than its
own, we again clarify that each Staet is obligated under the CAA and
the RHR to address regional haze visibility impairment resulting from
emissions from within the State, irrespective of whether another
Staet's contribution is greater. See ``Clarifications Regarding
Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second implementation
Period,'' dated July 8, 2021 (``2021 Clarifications Memo'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans for the Second Implementation Period. The EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park (July 8,
2021). https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarificationsregarding-regional-haze-state-implementationplans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commentor, National Parks Conservation Association
(NPCA), states that EPA's final action must make clear that reliance on
the MANE-VU analysis alone is inadequate to satisfy the Regional Haze
Rule. The commentor expresses concern that (1) the MANE-VU 3.0 Mm-1
threshold for defining sources to evaluate for additional controls to
achieve reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal and
(2) the two percent threshold New Jersey employed based on MANE-VU are
unreasonably high.
    Response: As explained in the NPRM, EPA does not necessarily agree
that the 3.0 inverse megameters (Mm-\1\) visibility impact
is a reasonable threshold for source selection. The RHR recognizes
that, due to the nature of regional haze visibility impairment,
numerous and sometimes relatively small sources may need to be selected
and evaluated for implementation of control measures to make reasonable
progress. See 2021 Clarifications Memo at 4. As explained in the 2021
Clarifications Memo, while states have discretion to choose any source
selection threshold that is reasonable, ``[a] state that relies on a
visibility (or proxy for visibility impact) threshold to select sources
for four-factor analysis should set the threshold at a level that
captures a meaningful portion of the state's total contribution to
visibility impairment to Class I areas.'' See 2021 Memo at 3. In this
case, the 3.0 Mm-\1\ threshold identified only one source in
New Jersey (and only 22 across the entire MANE-VU region), indicating
that it may in some cases be unreasonably high. Since MANE-VU's
threshold identified only one source in New Jersey for four-factor
analysis, we do not in this case necessarily agree that a 3.0
Mm-\1\ threshold for selecting sources for four-factor
analysis results in a set of sources the evaluation of which has the
potential to meaningfully reduce the Staet's contribution to visibility
impairment.
    In this particular instance, we proposed to find that New Jersey's
additional information and explanation indicated that the State had in
fact examined a reasonable set of sources, including sources flagged by
the federal land managers (FLMs), and reasonably concluded that four-
factor analyses for its top-impacting sources were not necessary
because the outcome would be that no further emission reductions would
be reasonable. EPA based the proposed finding on the State's
examination of its largest operating EGUs and its industrial commercial
institutional (ICI) boilers, at the time of SIP submission, and on the
emissions from and controls that apply to those sources, as well as on
New Jersey's existing SIP-approved NOX and SO2
rules that effectively control emissions from the largest contributing
stationary-source sectors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See April 2021 Supplemental Information for New Jersey's
March 2020 Regional Haze SIP at 4-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commentor, NPCA, asserts that, contrary to the CAA's
requirement, SIP measures, including stationary source emission
limitations, must be practically enforceable and approved into the SIP.
Additionally, the commentor notes EPA's proposal explains that for
MANE-VU's Ask 4, the State's reliance and use of this Ask, which
includes unspecified provisions that either are or will be in
stationary source permits, is approvable ``as being part of the
region's strategy for making reasonable progress.'' NPCA states that
EPA must not approve this element of the proposed SIP because the
permit provisions in construction and operating permits neither are nor
will be in the SIP.
    Response: EPA's approval of New Jersey's regional haze SIP is based
on the fact the submission satisfies the applicable regulatory
requirements for the second planning period in 40 CFR 51.308(f), (g),
and (i). The applicable regulatory requirements include that states
must evaluate and determine the emission reduction measures which are
necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the four statutory
factors, and that the measures that are necessary for reasonable
progress must be in the SIP. EPA's NPRM explains that MANE-VU's Asks 2
and 3 engage with these requirements. EPA's proposal further explains
that the measures in the State's SIP, and the related explanations it
provided in its SIP submission, satisfy those Asks and therefore the
applicable regulatory requirements. EPA's approval is therefore based
on its determination that New Jersey's response to Asks 2 and 3 satisfy
the reasonable progress requirements. To the extent that MANE-VU and
the State regard the measures in Asks 1 and 4 through 6 as being part
of the long term strategy for making reasonable progress, it was
reasonable for New Jersey to address those Asks in its SIP submission.
    As articulated in EPA's NPRM, Ask 4 requests that MANE-VU states
pursue updating permits, enforceable agreements, and/or rules to lock-
in lower emission rates for sources larger than 250 million British
Thermal Units (MMBtu) per hour that have switched to lower emitting
fuels. New Jersey's federally approved SIP for NOX
reasonably available control technology (RACT) limits the capability of
a subject facility to switch to higher emitting fuels.\4\ Furthermore,
New Jersey's federally approved sulfur regulations in their SIP,
provide that any source that combusts solid fuel and that is
constructed, installed, reconstructed or modified, is also subject to
New Jersey's state-of-the-art requirements,\5\ lowest achievable
emission rate requirements,\6\ and best available control technology
requirements at 40 CFR 52.21. In addition, modified units in New Jersey
are required to amend their permits through the New Source Review (NSR)
process if they plan to switch back to coal or a fuel that will
increase emissions. A change in fuel would be a modification.\7\ New
Jersey's operating

permits regulations require that an application to modify the permit be
submitted prior to the change in fuel.\8\ Given the permitting and
regulatory requirements outlined above, the EPA finds that New Jersey
reasonably determined it had satisfied Ask 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-19.20 ``Fuel switching.''
    \5\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.12 ``State of the art'' and N.J.A.C.
7:27-22.35 ``Advances in the art of air pollution control.''
    \6\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-18 ``Control and Prohibition of Air
Pollution from New or Altered Sources Affecting Ambient Air Quality
(Emission Offset Rules).''
    \7\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-22.1, defining ``Modify'' or
``modification'' as ``means any physical change in, or change in the
method of operation of, existing equipment or control apparatus that
increases the amount of actual emissions of any air contaminant
emitted by that equipment or control apparatus or that results in
the emission of any air contaminant not previously emitted. This
term shall not include normal repair and maintenance. A modification
may be incorporated into an operating permit through a significant
modification, a minor modification, or a seven-day-notice change.''
    \8\ See N.J.A.C. 7:27-22 ``Operating Permits.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Sierra Club and NPCA comment that EPA must thoroughly
consider environmental justice concerns, for which the New Jersey SIP
revision fails to adequately account. The energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance factor directs states to consider
the broader environmental implications of their regional haze plans, by
requiring an analysis of the ``non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance,'' including environmental justice. In addition, the
commenters assert that EPA failed to consider environmental justice
concerns in several New Jersey communities identified by EPA's EJ
Screen ranking in the ``90+ percentile for air toxics cancer risk, air
toxics respiratory health impacts, and ozone exposure.'' Commenters
also state that neither the SIP submittal nor EPA's proposal explain
how the SIP complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    Response: The regional haze statutory provisions do not explicitly
address considerations of environmental justice, and neither do the
regulatory requirements of the second planning period in 40 CFR
51.308(f), (g), and (i). However, the lack of explicit direction does
not preclude the State's SIP submission. As explained in ``EPA Legal
Tools to Advance Environmental Justice,'' \9\ the CAA provides states
with the discretion to consider environmental justice in developing
rules and measures related to regional haze. While a Staet may consider
environmental justice under the reasonable progress factors, neither
the statute nor the regulation requires states to conduct an
environmental justice analysis for EPA to approve a SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See EPA Legal Tools to Advance Environmental Justice, May
2022, available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-05/EJ%20Legal%20Tools%20May%202022%20FINAL.pdf at 35-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this instance, New Jersey explained that it ``determined that
reasonable progress is being made with the implementation of the Asks
and other additional measures to improve visibility for the second
planning period.'' \10\ In its submittal, the State also noted that it
has an advisory body, the Environmental Justice Advisory Council
(EJAC), that is committed to the basic tenet set forth by the
``Environmental Justice Movement that all communities, regardless of
their racial, ethnic, or economic composition, are entitled to equal
protection from the consequences of environmental hazards.'' New
Jersey's submittal also states that EJAC has a workgroup that focuses
on air issues. In addition, the State's submittal indicates that New
Jersey Executive Order No. 23,\11\ signed on April 20, 2018, by
Governor Murphy, directs NJDEP, with support from other agencies, to
develop guidance on how all Staet departments can incorporate
environmental justice considerations into their actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Appendix K of docket EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0432.
    \11\ https://nj.gov/infobank/eo/056murphy/pdf/E.O.-23.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters have provided additional information from an EJ Screen
analysis that the State did not consider as part of its regional haze
decision making. Without agreeing with the particular relevance or
accuracy of this information, EPA acknowledges the EJ Screen
information provided as part of the comment, which identifies certain
demographic and environmental information regarding areas across New
Jersey. The focus of the SIP at issue here, the regional haze SIP for
New Jersey, is sulfate and nitrate emissions. This action addresses one
EGU facility with three units and two industrial/institutional sources
of air pollution impacting Class I areas. As discussed in the NPRM and
in this notice of final rulemaking, EPA has evaluated New Jersey's SIP
submission against the statutory and regulatory regional haze
requirements and determined that it satisfies those minimum
requirements. Furthermore, the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation of
environmental justice with a SIP.
    In addition to the above-discussed environmental justice related
comments, the commenters also reference Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Title VI). EPA has previously addressed comments
pertaining to Title VI and submitted on attainment planning SIP
actions. See, e.g., 87 FR 60494, 60530 (Oct. 5, 2022); 77 FR 65294
(Oct. 26, 2012). Most recently, EPA acknowledged in the October 5,
2022, proposed action that EPA has not issued national guidance or
regulations concerning consideration of Title VI in the context of the
SIP program. EPA indicated in the October 5, 2022, proposed action that
guidance concerning implementation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E) and
Title VI is forthcoming.
    Comment: The commentor, NPCA, asserts that there are two statements
in section III.C. ``Long-Term Strategy for Regional Haze,'' \12\ of the
proposal that are inconsistent with the statutory requirements for
reasonable progress. The commentor states that EPA must correct and
clarify these inaccurate and confusing statements in its final action.
The commentor notes that where a Staet uses visibility impacts (or
supposedly minimal or insufficient visibility improvements) to reject
emission controls at air pollution sources, that SIP submittal will be
at odds with the plain language of the Act. The commentor also states
that EPA must clarify in its final action that states must not rely on
visibility to exclude emission reducing measures from a source that
would otherwise be required to do so under the four statutory factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 87 FR 51020-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: EPA agrees with the commentor that visibility should not
be used to summarily reject controls that are reasonable given the four
statutory factors and notes that New Jersey did not use visibility
impacts to reject emission controls at air pollution sources in its SIP
submission. However, the EPA has also explained that states have
flexibility under the CAA and RHR to reasonably consider visibility
benefits as an optional factor alongside the four statutory factors, so
long as such consideration does undermine or nullify the role of those
statutory factors.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Responses to Comments on Protection of
Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State Plans; Proposed
Rule (81 FR 26942, May 4, 2016), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0531,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at 186; 2019 Guidance at 36-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving New Jersey's March 26, 2020, SIP submission,
supplemented on September 8, 2020, and April 1, 2021, as satisfying the
regional haze requirements for the second implementation period
contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f).

IV. 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, EPA's role is to approve Staet
choices, provided that they meet

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves Staet law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by Staet 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 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a Staet program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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 Clean Air Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the 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 it 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).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The NJDEP did not evaluate EJ considerations by means of an
extensive EJ analysis as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such
an evaluation. Nevertheless, NJDEP did reference existing EJ programs
within its SIP submittal, as described above in the section titled,
``Evaluation of Comments.'' EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did
not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being
taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and the
Comptroller General of the United States. 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 January 16, 2024. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

Lisa Garcia,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 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 FF--New Jersey

0
2. In Sec.  52.1570, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Regional Haze Plan from 2018-2028'' at the end of the table
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                      EPA-Approved New Jersey Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable geographic      New Jersey
          SIP element             or nonattainment area    submittal date   EPA approval date     Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan from 2018-    State-wide............  March 26, 2020 as  11/16/2023,         Full
 2028.                                                    supplemented on    [insert Federal    approval.
                                                          September 8,       Register           New
                                                          2020 and April     citation].         Jersey has met
                                                          1, 2021.                              the Regional
                                                                                Haze Rule
                                                                                requirements for
                                                                                the 2nd
                                                                                implementation
                                                                                period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-25239 Filed 11-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47773-47774]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2022-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2261]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before November 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2261, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

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 protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report

that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is
considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Benton County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 19-07-0013S Preliminary Date: April 29, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Vinton.........................  City Hall, 110 West 3rd Street,
                                          Vinton, IA 52349.
Unincorporated Areas of Benton County..  Benton County Courthouse, 111
                                          East 4th Street, Vinton, IA
                                          52349.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Douglas County, Nebraska and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 17-07-0403S Preliminary Date: February 17, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bennington.....................  City Office, 15505 Warehouse
                                          Street, Bennington, NE 68007.
City of Omaha..........................  Omaha-Douglas Civic Center,
                                          1819 Farnam Street, Omaha, NE
                                          68183.
City of Ralston........................  City Hall, 5500 South 77th
                                          Street, Ralston, NE 68127.
City of Valley.........................  City Hall, 203 North Spruce
                                          Street, Valley, NE 68064.
Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County.  Douglas County Environmental
                                          Services, 15335 West Maple
                                          Road, Suite 201, Omaha, NE
                                          68116.
Village of Boys Town...................  Village Hall, 14100 Crawford
                                          Street, Boys Town, NE 68010.
Village of Waterloo....................  Village Office, 509 South Front
                                          Street, Waterloo, NE 68069.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-16749 Filed 8-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: December 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 68874-68875]
[DOCID:fr06de07-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-15-000; PF07-9-000]

Steckman Ridge, LP; Notice of Application

November 28, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 1, 2007, Steckman Ridge, LP (Steckman
Ridge), 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77251, pursuant to
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the
Commission's regulations, filed an abbreviated application for
certificates of public convenience and necessity, seeking authority to
own, operate, construct, install, and maintain a natural gas storage
field and related facilities in Bedford County, Pennsylvania; to
provide open-access firm and interruptible storage services in
interstate commerce at market-based rates under 18 CFR Part 284,
Subpart G; and to undertake the limited construction and operation
activities permitted under 18 CFR Part 157, Subpart F. This filing is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using

the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC at FERCOnlineSupport or call toll-free, (866)
208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, Steckman Ridge requests authorization to: (i) Convert
five existing production wells to storage wells; (ii) construct, own,
and operate 18 additional storage wells, approximately 7.49 miles of
16-inch diameter pipeline and 3.6 miles of 6- and 8-inch diameter
pipeline that will comprise the Storage Field Pipeline Network, one
9,470 horsepower compressor station, and associated above-ground
facilities; and (iii) charge market-based rates for the storage and hub
services that will be provided by the project.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Garth Johnson, Steckman Ridge, LP, PO Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251 at
(713) 627-5415.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right

to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments
protests and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
(http://www.ferc.gov) site under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: December 18, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-23617 Filed 12-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 185 (Thursday, September 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57540-57542]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24096]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0852; FRL- 9934-40-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South
Carolina; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve the September 20, 2011, State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission, provided by the South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) for inclusion into the South
Carolina SIP. This final action pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 Lead national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt
and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. SC DHEC certified that the South Carolina SIP
contains provisions to ensure the 2008 Lead NAAQS is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in South Carolina. With the exception of
provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
permitting which EPA has already approved, EPA is taking final action
to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission, provided to
EPA on September 20, 2011.

DATES: This rule will be effective October 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0852. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri Farngalo, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Farngalo can be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. Section 110(a) of the
CAA generally requires states to make a SIP submission to meet
applicable requirements in order to provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three
years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe. For additional information on the
infrastructure SIP requirements, see the proposed rulemaking published
on June 8, 2015. (80 FR 32324)
    On June 8, 2015, EPA proposed to approve portions of South
Carolina's September 20, 2011, 2008 Lead NAAQS infrastructure SIP
submission with the exception of provisions pertaining to PSD
permitting in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and (J). See 80 FR
32324. EPA did not receive any comments, adverse or otherwise, on the
June 8, 2015, proposed rule. EPA took final action to approve the PSD
permitting requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i) and
(J) on March 18, 2015. See 80 FR 14019.

II. This Action

    In this rulemaking, EPA is taking final action to approve the
remaining portions of South Carolina's infrastructure submission as
demonstrating that the State meets the applicable requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the

2008 Lead NAAQS. As mentioned above, EPA took final action on the
elements pertaining to PSD permitting in a separate action on March 18,
2015. See 80 FR 14019.

III. Final Action

    With the exception of provisions pertaining to PSD permitting
requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J), EPA is
taking final action to approve South Carolina's September 20, 2011,
infrastructure submission because it addresses the required
infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS. SC DHEC has addressed
the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to
section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 Lead NAAQS is
implemented, enforced, and maintained in South Carolina.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this action for the state of South Carolina does not
have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is
located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba
Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and
local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian
Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state
and local agencies and authorities.'' However, EPA has determined that
because this rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian
Tribe because, as noted above, this action is not approving any
specific rule, but rather proposing that South Carolina's already
approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. EPA notes this action will
not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
    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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 23, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 10, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    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 PP--South Carolina

0
2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding entry ``110(a)(1) and (2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             State
               Provision                effective date      EPA approval date               Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure             9/20/2011  9/24/2015 [Insert Federal  With the exception of
 Requirements for the 2008 Lead                          Register citation].        provisions pertaining to PSD
 National Ambient Air Quality                                                       permitting requirements in
 Standards.                                                                         sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong
                                                                                3 of D(i) and (J).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-24096 Filed 9-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 34379]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. FA11-21-000]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of
Designation of Commission Staff as Non-Decisional

    With respect to an order issued by the Commission today in the
above-captioned docket, with the exceptions noted below, the staff of
the Office of Enforcement are designated as non-decisional in
deliberations by the Commission in this docket. Accordingly, pursuant
to 18 CFR 385.2202 (2011), these persons will not serve as advisors to
the Commission or take part in the Commission's review of any offer of
settlement. Likewise, as non-decisional staff, pursuant to 18 CFR
385.2201 (2011), they are prohibited from communicating with advisory
staff concerning any deliberations in this docket.
    Exceptions to this designation as non-decisional are:

Larry Gasteiger
Bryan Craig
Roger Morie
David Applebaum
Teresina Stasko
Jeremy Medovoy

    Dated: June 4, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14019 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P