[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 64 (Wednesday, April 3, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19998-20001]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07654]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814; FRL-9797-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida; Prong
3 of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) Infrastructure Requirement for the 1997
and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve in part, and disapprove
in part, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions, submitted by
the State of Florida, through the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) on April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009. This final
action addresses the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements pertaining
to prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. 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. EPA is approving in
part, and disapproving in part, the submission for Florida that relates
to adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that interfere with any
other state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration of
its air quality. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS associated with
Florida have been addressed in separate rulemakings.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective May 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814. 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 Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. This Action
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR
38652), EPA promulgated a new annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS. On
December 5, 2012, EPA proposed to approve in part, and disapprove in
part, Florida's submission addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
related to PSD. A summary of the background for today's final action is
provided below. See EPA's December 5, 2012, proposed rulemaking (77 FR
72287) for more detail.
    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs 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. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. The data and
analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits
the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program
elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions
in connection with previous PM NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As already mentioned, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. However, in this action, EPA
is only addressing element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to PSD.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong
2''). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in
one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to
protect visibility in another state (``prong 4''). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
    In previous actions, EPA has already taken action to address
Florida's SIP submissions related to sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Today's final rulemaking action relates only to requirements
related to prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which as previously
described, requires that the SIP contain adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that interfere with any other state's required
measures to prevent

significant deterioration of its air quality.

II. This Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve in part, and disapprove in
part Florida's infrastructure submissions as demonstrating that the
State meets the applicable requirements of prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA, that relate to adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that interfere with any other state's required
measures to prevent significant deterioration of its air quality for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)
of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated
by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP.
    On December 5, 2012, EPA proposed to approve in part, and
disapprove in part, Florida's April 18, 2008, and September 23, 2009,
infrastructure submissions for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, addressing prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
At present, there are four regulations that are required to be adopted
into the SIP to meet the PSD-related infrastructure requirements. Of
these four regulations EPA has approved the following three into the
Florida SIP.
    1. EPA's approval of Florida's PSD/New Source Review (NSR)
regulations which address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update
requirements was published in the Federal Register on June 15, 2012 (77
FR 35862).
    2. EPA's approval of Florida's NSR PM2.5 Rule was
published in the Federal Register on September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58027).
    3. EPA's approval of Florida's PSD/PM2.5 approving
PM2.5 increments was published in the Federal Register on
September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58027). These three approval actions
demonstrate that Florida's SIP-approved PSD program meets three of the
four required regulatory elements necessary to satisfy prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). See EPA's December 5, 2012, proposed rule (77
FR 72287) for more detail.
    With respect to the fourth necessary PSD regulatory element--the
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule--Florida did not submit a SIP
revision to adopt the appropriate emission thresholds for determining
which new stationary sources and modification projects become subject
to PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions as promulgated
in the GHG Tailoring Rule. Therefore, Florida's federally-approved SIP
contained errors that resulted in its failure to address, or provide
adequate legal authority for, the implementation of a GHG PSD program
in Florida. In the GHG SIP Call,\1\ EPA determined that the State of
Florida's SIP was substantially inadequate to achieve CAA requirements
because its existing PSD program does not apply to GHG-emitting
sources. This rule finalized a SIP call for 15 state and local
permitting authorities including Florida. EPA explained that if a
state, identified in the SIP call, failed to submit the required
corrective SIP revision by the applicable deadline, EPA would
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) under CAA section
110(c)(1)(A) for that state to govern PSD permitting for GHG. On
December 30, 2010, EPA promulgated a FIP \2\ because Florida failed to
submit, by its December 22, 2010, deadline, the corrective SIP revision
to apply its PSD program to sources of GHG consistent with the
thresholds described in the GHG Tailoring rule. The FIP ensured that a
permitting authority (i.e., EPA) would be available to issue
preconstruction PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources in the State of
Florida. EPA took these actions through interim final rulemaking,
effective upon publication, to ensure the availability of a permitting
authority--EPA--in Florida for GHG-emitting sources when those sources
became subject to PSD on January 2, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call, Final Rule'' 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010).
    \2\ ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan--Final Rule''
75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Florida SIP currently does not provide adequate legal authority
to address the GHG PSD permitting requirements at or above the levels
of emissions set forth in the GHG Tailoring Rule, or at other
appropriate levels. As a result, EPA has determined that the Florida
SIP does not satisfy a portion of prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements.
Therefore, EPA is disapproving FDEP's submission for prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) as it relates relate to GHG PSD permitting
requirements. EPA's disapproval of this element does not result in any
further obligation on the part of Florida, because EPA has already
promulgated a FIP for the Florida PSD program to address permitting GHG
at or above the GHG Tailoring Rule thresholds. See 76 FR 25178. Thus,
today's final action to approve in part, and disapprove in part, FDEP's
submission for prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), will not require any
further action by either FDEP or EPA.
    EPA received one comment on its December 5, 2012, proposed
rulemaking. The Commenter wanted ``to congratulate EPA workers for
trying to decrease particles and increase the public's health.'' This
comment does not appear to be related to the issues presented in the
proposed rulemaking, and instead, appears related to a wholly separate
topic--promulgation of the PM NAAQS. EPA does not interpret this
comment as relevant to the topic of EPA's December 5, 2012, proposed
action. Instead, EPA interprets this comment as being off-topic and
outside of the scope of today's final rulemaking.

III. Final Action

    As described above, EPA is approving in part, and disapproving in
part, the SIP submission from Florida to incorporate provisions into
the State's implementation plan to address prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is approving the State's
prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions as they relate to the
``Phase II Rule,'' the ``NSR PM2.5 Rule,'' and the
``PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to
PM2.5 increments)'' because they are consistent with section
110 of the CAA. EPA also is disapproving Florida's submissions for the
portion of the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 3 requirements related to
the regulation of GHG emissions for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    EPA notes that on September 19, 2012, the Agency approved the
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) portion of the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule into the SIPs for Florida.
See 77 FR 58027. Since that time, on January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 10-
1413, 2013 WL 216018 (Jan. 22, 2013), issued a judgment that, inter
alia, vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC to the
federal regulations, at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated as part of the 2010
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. In its decision, the
court held that EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt
permit applicants from the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2)
of the CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be
included in all PSD permit applications. Thus,

although the PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a
State's PSD program and thus not a structural requirement for purposes
of infrastructure SIPs, were a SIP-approved PSD program that contains
such a provision to use that provision to issue new permits without
requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such application of
the SIP would be inconsistent with the court's opinion and the
requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.
    Given the clarity of the court's decision, it would now be
inappropriate for Florida to continue to allow applicants for any
pending or future PSD permits to rely on the PM2.5 SMC in
order to avoid compiling ambient monitoring data for PM2.5.
Because of the vacatur of EPA regulations, the SMC provisions, included
in Florida's SIP-approved PSD programs on the basis of EPA's
regulations are unlawful and no longer enforceable by law. Permits
issued on the basis of these provisions as they appear in the approved
SIP would be inconsistent with the CAA and difficult to defend in
administrative and judicial challenges. Thus, the SIP provisions may
not be applied even prior to their removal from the SIP. Florida should
instead require applicants requesting a PSD permit, including those
having already been applied for but for which the permit has not yet
been received, to submit ambient PM2.5 monitoring data in
accordance with the CAA requirements whenever either direct
PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor is emitted in a
significant amount.\3\ As the previously-approved PM2.5 SMC
provisions in the Florida SIP are no longer enforceable, EPA does not
believe the existence of the provisions in the State's implementation
plan precludes today's approval of the infrastructure SIP submissions
as they relate to prong 3 of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In lieu of the applicants' need to set out PM2.5
monitors to collect ambient data, applicants may submit
PM2.5 ambient data collected from existing monitoring
networks when the permitting authority deems such data to be
representative of the air quality in the area of concern for the
year preceding receipt of the application. EPA believes that
applicants will generally be able to rely on existing representative
monitoring data to satisfy the monitoring data requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intends to initiate a rulemaking to correct SIPs that were
approved with regard to the PM2.5 SMC prior to the court's
decision. EPA also advises Florida to begin preparations to remove the
PM2.5 provisions from its state PSD regulations and SIP.
However, EPA has not yet set a deadline requiring states to take action
to revise their existing PSD programs to address the court's decision.
    EPA notes that on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1250, 2013 WL 45653
(D.C. Cir., filed July 15, 2008) (consolidated with 09-1102, 11-1430),
issued a judgment that remanded EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The court ordered EPA to
``repromulgate these rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this
opinion.'' Id. at *8. Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the CAA
establishes additional provisions for particulate matter nonattainment
areas.
    The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision,
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' 73 FR 28321 (May
16, 2008), promulgated NSR requirements for implementation of
PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas (nonattainment NSR) and
attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the requirements of Subpart 4
only pertain to nonattainment areas, EPA does not consider the portions
of the 2008 rule that address requirements for PM2.5
attainment and unclassifiable areas to be affected by the court's
opinion. Moreover, EPA does not anticipate the need to revise any PSD
requirements promulgated in the 2008 rule in order to comply with the
court's decision. Accordingly, EPA's actions for the Florida
infrastructure SIPs as related to element (D)(i)(II) with respect to
the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule does
not conflict with the court's opinion.
    The court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 implementation rule also does not
affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA
interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due 3 years after adoption or
revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to
as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by
the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part
D, extending as far as 10 years following designations for some
elements.

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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country, and EPA notes that it
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 June 3, 2013. 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, Particulate
Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: March 26, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520(e) is amended by adding two new entries for
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' and
``110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' at the end
of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Florida Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         State       EPA approval      Federal Register
             Provision              effective date       date               notice              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure         4/18/2008        4/3/2013  [Insert citation of    EPA disapproved the
 Requirements for 1997 Fine                                          publication].          State's prong 3 of
 Particulate Matter National                                                                section
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                             110(a)(2)(D)(i) as
                                                                                it relates to GHG
                                                                                PSD permitting
                                                                                requirements.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure         9/23/2009        4/3/2013  [Insert citation of    EPA disapproved the
 Requirements for 2006 Fine                                          publication].          State's prong 3 of
 Particulate Matter National                                                                section
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                             110(a)(2)(D)(i) as
                                                                                it relates to GHG
                                                                                PSD permitting
                                                                                requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-07654 Filed 4-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 24, 2007

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-20145

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of DELTA AIR LINES, INC. (DELTA) filed 12/21/06 for:

XX  Renewal of exemption for at least two years under 49 U.S. C. 40109
to provide the following services:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between points in the United States and points worldwide on a
third-country code-share basis.  Delta will display its designator code
on flights operated by its foreign code-share partners and their
subsidiaries and affiliates that have been authorized by the Department
to carry the Delta code under blanket statements of authorization.

Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst: Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

DISPOSITION

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see remarks below)

The above action was effective when taken: January 24, 2007, through
January 24, 2009.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

                              Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreements
between the United States and the homelands of Delta’s foreign
code-share partners listed in this Notice.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	   XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

	   XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

	   XX Conditions attached to the relevant blanket statements of
authorization

Remarks: The exemption authority granted here is for operations with the
foreign code-share partners and affiliates named above.  Should Delta
and any new code-share partner be granted statements of authorization,
Delta will need to apply for exemption authority to the extent necessary
to permit Delta to display its code on flights operated by the new
code-share partners.

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the
public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a
major federal action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

APPENDIX

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder
shall, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to
or from a foreign airport, contact its International Principal Security
Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether
the Transportation Security Administration has determined that security
is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served;

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

11/2006

 The authorized foreign carriers are: Société Air France; Brit Air;
City Jet Limited; Regional; Air Jamaica Limited; Alitalia-Linee Aeree
Italiane-S.p.A.; Alitalia Express S.p.A.; China Airlines, Ltd.; Czech
Airlines; Emirates; Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd; Royal Air Maroc; KLM
Royal Dutch Airlines; and KLM Cityhopper B.V.

 For administrative convenience purposes, Delta has requested
coextensive renewal of all of the exemption authority previously granted
in this docket.  See Notices of Action Taken dated March 1, 2005,
February 6, 2006, and May 1, 2006.  We are granting the carrier’s
request.

 See Notices of Action Taken dated October 26, 2001 (Docket OST
2001-10417, Delta-Alitalia);

August 6, 1998 (Undocketed, Delta-Air France); February 27, 2001 (Docket
OST-2000-8207, Delta-Czech); August 6, 1998, (Undocketed, Delta-Korean);
October 23, 2003 (Docket OST-2003-15805, Delta-Emirates); April 26, 2002
(Docket OST-2002-11459, Delta-Air China); October 22, 2004 (Docket
OST-2000-7738, Delta-Royal Air Maroc); March 8, 2004 (Docket
OST-2003-16071, Delta-Air Jamaica); February 6, 2006 (Docket
OST2005-20145, Delta-KLM Royal Dutch Airlines); and May 1, 2006 (Docket
OST2005-20145, Delta-KLM Cityhopper B.V.).

 Delta will need to have conducted code-share safety audits of its
foreign partners prior to receipt of authority for such code-share
services.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59841-59843]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23691]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0368; FRL-9901-41-Region3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; West Virginia's Redesignation Request for the Wheeling,
WV-OH 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) requested that the West Virginia portion of the Wheeling, WV-OH
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment area
(``Wheeling Area'' or ``Area'') be redesignated as attainment for the
1997 annual PM2.5 national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). In this rulemaking action, EPA is approving the 1997 annual
PM2.5 redesignation request for the West Virginia portion of
the Area. EPA is also approving the maintenance plan SIP revision that
the State submitted in conjunction with its redesignation request. The
maintenance plan provides for continued attainment of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS for 10 years after redesignation of the West
Virginia portion of the Area. The maintenance plan includes a
comprehensive emissions inventory that EPA is approving in this
rulemaking. The maintenance plan also includes an insignificance
determination for the onroad motor vehicle contribution of
PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur dioxide
(SO2) for the West Virginia portion of the Area for purposes
of transportation conformity. EPA is also approving West Virginia's
insignificance determination for transportation conformity. In
addition, EPA is also finding that the Area continues to attain the
standard. This rulemaking action approving the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS redesignation request, maintenance plan,
comprehensive emissions inventory, and insignificance determination for
transportation conformity for the West Virginia portion of the Area is
based on EPA's determination that the Area has met the criteria for
redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0368. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE.,
Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 8, 2012, the State of West Virginia, through the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), submitted a
request to redesignate the West Virginia portion of the Wheeling Area
nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. The Wheeling Area is composed of Marshall and Ohio Counties in
West Virginia and Belmont County in Ohio. On December 11, 2012 (77 FR
73575), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the
State of West Virginia. Pursuant to sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of
the CAA, the NPR proposed approval of West Virginia's redesignation
request, a SIP revision that establishes a maintenance plan for the
West Virginia portion of the Area that provides for continued
attainment of the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS for at least 10
years after redesignation, a comprehensive emissions inventory for

PM2.5, NOX and SO2, and the
insignificance determination for the onroad motor vehicle contribution
of PM2.5, NOX and SO2 for
transportation conformity purposes for the West Virginia portion of the
Area.
    On July 24, 2013 (78 FR 44487), EPA published a supplemental NPR
that revised and expanded the basis for proposing approval of West
Virginia's request in light of developments since EPA issued its
initial proposal on December 11, 2012. Principally, the supplemental
NPR addressed the effects of the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court's
January 4, 2013 decision to remand to EPA two final rules implementing
the PM2.5 NAAQS. In the supplemental NPR, EPA proposed to
proceed with the approval of the request to designate the Wheeling Area
to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the
associated maintenance plan. On June 24, 2013, WVDEP supplemented its
March 8, 2012 SIP submittal with the 2008 ammonia and volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions inventory which EPA proposed to approve in the
supplemental NPR, in conjunction with the PM2.5,
NOX and SO2 emissions inventory that EPA
previously proposed to approve, as meeting the comprehensive emissions
inventory requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. See December
11, 2012 (77 FR 73575) and July 24, 2013 (78 FR 44487). In addition,
EPA also proposed to approve the insignificance determination for the
onroad motor vehicle contribution of PM2.5, NOX
and SO2 for transportation conformity purposes for the West
Virginia portion of the Area.
    Other specific details of West Virginia's redesignation request,
the associated maintenance plan SIP revision, the comprehensive
emissions inventory, and insignificance determination, and the
rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in both the NPR and
the supplemental NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments
were received on either of the NPRs.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the redesignation request, the maintenance plan,
the comprehensive emissions inventory, and the insignificance
determination for transportation conformity for the West Virginia
portion of the Area because the requirements for approval have been
satisfied. EPA has evaluated West Virginia's redesignation request, and
determined that it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. Approval of this redesignation request
will change the designation of the West Virginia portion of the Area
from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA is also approving the associated maintenance plan for the
West Virginia portion of the Area as a revision to the West Virginia
SIP, because it meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. In
addition, EPA is also approving the comprehensive emissions inventory
as a revision to the West Virginia SIP because it meets the
requirements of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. Furthermore, EPA is
approving the transportation conformity insignificance determination
submitted by West Virginia for this Area in conjunction with its
redesignation request.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause
for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. A
delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of a
redesignation to attainment, which eliminates CAA obligations that
would otherwise apply. The immediate effective date for this action is
authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that
rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves
a restriction,'' and section 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' The purpose
of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section 553(d) is to give
affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and prepare
before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule, however, does not
create any new regulatory requirements such that affected parties would
need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule
relieves West Virginia of the obligation to comply with nonattainment-
related planning requirements for this PM2.5 Area pursuant
to Part D of the CAA. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5
U.S.C. 553(d) for this action to become effective on the date of
publication of this notice.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 29, 2013. 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 approving the redesignation request, the
maintenance plan, the comprehensive emissions inventory and
transportation conformity insignificance determination for the West
Virginia portion of the Wheeling Area may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: September 13, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are 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 XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for
Wheeling, WV-OH Area at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
             revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA-approval date       explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance      Marshall and Ohio     3/8/12, 6/24/  9/30/13, [Insert     See Sec.
 Plan for the Wheeling WV-OH Area.  Counties.                       13   page number where    52.2526(i) and
                                                                         the document         Sec.   52.2531(f).
                                                                         begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.2526 is amended by adding paragraph (i) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2526  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (i) EPA approves the maintenance plan for the West Virginia portion
of the Wheeling, WV-OH 1997 PM2.5 Nonattainment Area
(Marshall and Ohio Counties). The maintenance plan establishes a
determination of insignificance for PM2.5, NOX
and SO2 for transportation conformity purposes.

0
4. Section 52.2531 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2531  Base year emissions inventory.

* * * * *
    (f) EPA approves as a revision to the West Virginia State
Implementation Plan the comprehensive emissions inventory for the
Wheeling, WV-OH fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
nonattainment area submitted by the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection on March 8, 2012 and June 24, 2013. The
emissions inventory includes emissions estimates that cover the general
source categories of point sources, nonroad mobile sources, area
sources, onroad mobile sources and biogenic sources. The pollutants
that comprise the inventory are nitrogen oxides (NOX),
volatile organic compounds (VOC), PM2.5, ammonia
(NH3), and sulfur dioxide (SO2).

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
5. The authority citation for Part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
6. In Sec.  81.349, the table for West Virginia--PM2.5
(Annual NAAQS) is amended by revising the entry for the Wheeling, WV-OH
Area to read as follows:

Sec.  81.349  West Virginia.

* * * * *

                          West Virginia--PM2.5
                             [Annual NAAQS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation \a\
           Designated area            ----------------------------------
                                       Date \1\            Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Wheeling, WV-OH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall County......................   9/30/13  Attainment.
Ohio County..........................   9/30/13  Attainment.

                               * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-23691 Filed 9-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 67306-67307]
[DOCID:fr18de09-123]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation

(Docket Number FRA-2009-0103)

    By letter dated September 28, 2009, the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak), a Class 1 Railroad, petitioned FRA for a waiver
of compliance from 49 CFR part 214 (Railroad Workplace Safety) related
to the removal of snow from passenger station platforms outside of the
Northeast Corridor. Notice of this waiver request was published on
October 30, 2009. 74 FR 56257. Amtrak subsequently withdrew its
September 28, 2009, waiver request and by letter dated November 13,
2009, Amtrak submitted a modified request for waiver from 49 CFR part
214, again related to the removal of snow from passenger station
platforms outside of the Northeast Corridor.
    Section 214.335 of Part 214 specifies the methods by which roadway
work groups may be provided on-track safety when fouling tracks to
perform work. Fouling a track means ``the placement of an individual or
an item of equipment in such proximity to a track that the individual
or equipment could be struck by a moving train or on-track equipment,
or in any case is within four feet of the field side of the near
running rail.'' Amtrak states that the current definition of fouling a
track prevents the timely removal of snow from the last three feet of
station platforms adjacent to the track and it discourages the removal
of snow in an area where snow removal is critical for passenger safety.
Accordingly, Amtrak seeks permission to implement alternative
protection for workers removing snow.
    In accordance with Amtrak's waiver request, only Amtrak employees
and contractors trained on the alternative protection methods will be
used to remove snow from platforms and when relying on the proposed
alternative protection procedure, only small tools such as shovels,
brooms and leaf blowers would be used. If large, powered equipment is
to be used, Amtrak would comply with 49 CFR part 214.
    The alternative protection procedure would also include:
    1. Job briefings to discuss work to be done.
    2. Prohibition on workers' feet crossing the yellow tactile strip.
    3. Prohibition on conducting snow removal in the presence of moving
trains.
    Amtrak also submits they are not aware of any safety incidents
associated with the recommended procedures at the many stations
maintained by public agencies such as municipalities that use non
railroad employees to clear platforms.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2009-0103) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 30 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is

taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as
practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings
are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5
p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are
also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket
facility's Web site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 11, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-30202 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 5397]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice Of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-371-000.
    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: High Plains Expansion Non-Conforming Agreement Filing
to be effective 2/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/15/14.
    Accession Number: 20140115-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/27/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-372-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Negotiated Rates--Cherokee--AGL and MGAG to be
effective 2/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140116-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/28/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-373-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Market Lateral Service to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 1/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20140117-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/29/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR Sec.  385.211 and Sec.  385.214) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests
may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to
the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 17, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-02054 Filed 1-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69684-69686]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27782]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1432]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Guide To Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of
Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice invites comments on the information collection
provisions in the guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Industry:
Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits and
Vegetables.''

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by January 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written

comments on the collection of information to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with
the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, we are publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, we invite
comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of our functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the
accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.

Guide To Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards of Fresh-Cut Fruits and
Vegetables (OMB Control Number 0910-0609)--Extension

    Fresh-cut fruits and vegetables are fruits and vegetables that have
been processed by peeling, slicing, chopping, shredding, coring,
trimming, or mashing, with or without washing or other treatment, prior
to being packaged for consumption. The methods by which produce is
grown, harvested, and processed may contribute to its contamination
with pathogens and, consequently, the role of the produce in
transmitting foodborne illness. Factors such as the high degree of
handling and mixing of the product, the release of cellular fluids
during cutting or mashing, the high moisture content of the product,
the absence of a step lethal to pathogens, and the potential for
temperature abuse in the processing, storage, transport, and retail
display all increase the potential for pathogens to survive and grow in
fresh-cut produce.
    Sections 301 and 402 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 331 and 342) prohibits the distribution of adulterated food
in interstate commerce. In response to the increased consumption of
fresh-cut fruits and vegetables and the potential for foodborne illness
associated with these products, we recognize the need for guidance
specific to the processing of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. The
guidance document entitled, ``Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety
Hazards of Fresh-cut Fruits and Vegetables,'' which is available at
http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances, provides our recommendations to
fresh-cut produce processors about how to avoid contamination of their
product with pathogens. The guidance is in addition to the good
manufacturing practice (GMP) regulations found in part 110 (21 CFR part
110). The guidance is intended to assist fresh-cut produce processors
in minimizing microbial food safety hazards common to the processing of
most fresh-cut fruits and vegetables sold to consumers and retail
establishments in a ready-to-eat form. Accordingly, we encourage fresh-
cut produce processors to adopt the general recommendations in the
guidance and to tailor practices to their individual operations.
    The guidance provides information and recommended procedures
designed to help fresh-cut produce processors minimize microbial food
safety hazards. The recommended procedures contained in the guidance
are voluntary. Both FDA and fresh-cut produce processors will use and
benefit from the information collected.
    Two general recommendations in the guidance are for operators to
develop and implement both a written Standard Operating Procedures
(SOP) plan and a Sanitary Standard Operation Procedures (SSOP) plan.
SOPs and SSOPs are important components to properly implement and
monitor GMP, which are required for processed food operations under
part 110. Other recommended programs that require documentation and
recordkeeping are recall and traceback programs. In the event of a food
safety concern, processors who adopt these recommended programs will be
prepared to recall products from the marketplace or be able to
traceback fresh produce to its source. Fresh-cut produce processors are
also asked to consider the application of Hazards Analysis and Critical
Control Point (HACCP) principles or comparable preventive control
programs to the processing of fruits and vegetables. An HACCP system
allows managers to assess the inherent risks and identify hazards
attributable to a product or a process, and then determine the
necessary steps to control the hazards. FDA, along with other Federal
and State food Agencies and industry and food establishments, have
found such preventive control programs, when properly designed and
maintained by the establishment's personnel, to be valuable in managing
the safety of food products.
    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  No. of records                  Average burden
            Activity                  No. of            per        Total annual         per         Total hours
                                   recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records      recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOP and SSOP: Maintenance.......             122           3,315         404,430           0.067          27,097
Traceback development...........              10               1              10              20             200
Traceback maintenance...........             290               1             290              40          11,600
Preventive control program                    10               1              10             100           1,000
 comparable to an HACCP system:
 System development.............
Preventive control program                   145             510          73,950           0.067           4,955
 comparable to an HACCP system:
 System implementation..........

Preventive control program                   145               4             580               4           2,320
 comparable to an HACCP system:
 Implementation review..........
    Annual burden hours.........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          47,172
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

A. Industry Profile

    Estimates of the paperwork burden to the fresh-cut industry are
based on information received from a fresh-cut processor who has
developed and maintained these programs and information from a fresh-
cut produce industry trade association. We estimate that there are 280
fresh-cut plants in operation and that approximately 10 new firms will
enter the fresh cut industry over the next 3 years.

B. SOPs and SSOPs

    We consider the guidance's recommendation to develop SOPs and SSOPs
to be ``usual and customary'' for manufacturers and processors in the
fresh-cut industry (see 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2)). Therefore, we do not
calculate this burden.
    We recommend that facilities not only develop but also maintain
SOPs and SSOPs. Of the 280 fresh-cut processors, we estimate that over
half have SOP and SSOP maintenance programs in place. Therefore, for
purposes of estimating the annual recordkeeping burden for SOP and SSOP
maintenance programs, we assume that 40 percent of the existing
processors, or 112 firms, and the 10 new firms do not have SOP and SSOP
maintenance programs in place. We estimate the recordkeeping burden for
SOP and SSOP maintenance programs by assuming that these 122 firms will
choose to implement such a maintenance strategy as a result of the
recommendations in the guidance.
    A typical fresh-cut processing plant operates about 255 days per
year. For an 8-hour shift, assuming the ingredients are received twice
during that time, under the recommendations in the guidance, there
would be about 13 records kept (2 for inspecting incoming ingredients;
2 for inspecting the facility and production areas once every 4 hours;
3 records for equipment (maintenance, sanitation, and visual
inspections for defects); 1 for calibrating equipment; 2 temperature
recording audits (1 time for each of the 2 processing runs); and 3
microbiological audits (ingredients, food contact surfaces, and
equipment)). Therefore, the annual frequency of recordkeeping for SOPs
and SSOPs is calculated to be 3,315 times (255 x 13) per year per firm;
122 firms will be performing these activities to generate a total
404,430 records (3,315 x 22) annually.
    The total time to record observations for SOP and SSOP maintenance
is estimated to take 4 minutes or 0.067 hours per record, and the
number of records maintained is 404,430. Therefore, the total annual
burden in hours for 122 processors to maintain their SOP and SSOP
records is approximately 27,097 hours (404,430 x 0.067). The
maintenance burden for these 122 firms is estimated in row 1 of Table
1.

C. Recall and Traceback

    The burden to develop a traceback program is a one-time activity
estimated to take approximately 20 hours. Accordingly, we only need to
estimate the burden of this one-time activity on the 10 new businesses
expected to enter the industry in the next 3 years. We estimate that
the 10 new firms will spend 20 hours each preparing a traceback
program, for a total of 200 hours (10 x 20). The burden estimate of
developing a traceback program is shown in row 2 of Table 1.
    Firms may test their traceback programs yearly to see if
adjustments are needed to maintain traceback capabilities. Evaluating
and updating traceback programs is estimated to take 40 hours to
complete. The annual burden of maintaining a traceback program is
estimated for the 280 existing firms in the industry plus the 10 firms
new to the industry. Assuming that each firm completes this exercise
once a year, the total maintenance burden of traceback programs is
11,600 hours yearly (290 x 40). This burden estimate is shown in row 3
of Table 1.
    The guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in our regulations. The recommendations regarding
establishing and maintaining a recall plan, as provided in 21 CFR 7.59,
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0249. Therefore, we
are not calculating a paperwork burden for recall plans.

D. Preventative Control Program

    Developing an HACCP plan is a one-time activity during the first
year that is estimated to take 100 hours based on a trained HACCP team
working on the plan full time. Accordingly, we only need to estimate
the burden on the 10 new businesses expected to enter the industry in
the next 3 years. We estimate that the 10 new firms will spend 100
hours each to develop their individual HACCP plans, for a total of
1,000 hours (10 x 100). This burden estimate is shown in row 4 of Table
1.
    After the HACCP plan is developed, the frequency for recordkeeping
for implementing or maintaining daily records is estimated to be 510
records per year. The total time to record observations is estimated to
take 4 minutes or 0.067 hours per record. Of the 280 existing firms, we
estimate that approximately 135 firms have not implemented HACCP plans.
We assume that these fresh-cut processors (135 existing firms plus 10
new firms) would voluntarily implement an HACCP plan. Therefore, the
total annual records kept by 145 firms is 73,950 (510 x 145), and the
total hours required are 4,955 (73,950 records x 0.067 hours per record
= 4,954.65, rounded to 4,955). This annual burden is shown in row 5 of
Table 1.
    Fresh-cut processors are presumed to review their HACCP plans four
times per year (once per quarter). Estimating that it takes each of the
145 firms 4 hours per review each quarter, the total burden of this
activity is 2,320 (145 x 4 x 4) hours per year. This annual burden is
shown in row 6 of Table 1.

    Dated: November 14, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-27782 Filed 11-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 10779]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-564-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: AVC Storage Loss Retainage
Factor Update--2022 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-565-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Flow Through of Cash-Out Penalty
Revenues filed on 2-18-22 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-566-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Empire Fuel Tracker Per GT&C
23.3 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/22.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-567-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker Filing (GTC 41)
2022 to be effective 4/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/18/22.
    Accession Number: 20220218-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/22.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 18, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04049 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78221-78222]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31611]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meeting related to the transmission planning activities of the
Southeastern Regional Transmission Planning (SERTP) Process.
    The SERTP Process Fourth Quarter Meeting.
December 15, 2015 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. (Eastern Time)
The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference.
The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
Further information may be found at: www.southeasternrtp.com.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
    Docket Nos. ER13-1928, et al., Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, et al.
    Docket Nos. ER13-1923, et al., Midcontinent Independent System
Operator, Inc., et al.
    Docket No. EL15-32, North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction
Network, Inc. v. Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress.
    For more information, contact Valerie Martin, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (202) 502-
6139 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: December 10, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31611 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P