 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2011)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 44265-44271] [FR Doc No: 2011-18423]

=======================================================================

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0303; FRL-9441-5]

Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of State Implementation

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone

National Ambient Air Quality Standard; Wyoming

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving and partially disapproving the

State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Wyoming to

demonstrate that the SIP meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1)

and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997. Section

110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that each state, after a new or revised

NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIPs to ensure that they meet the

requirements of the ``infrastructure elements'' of section 110(a)(2).

The State of Wyoming submitted two certifications, dated December 7,

2007 and December 10, 2009, that its SIP met these requirements for the

1997 ozone NAAQS. The December 7, 2007 certification was determined to

be complete on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205). In addition, EPA is

approving a May 11, 2011 SIP submittal from the State that revises the

State's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective August 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID

No. EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0303. All documents in the docket are listed on

the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available, 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 either

electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at

all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You

may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4

p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.<PHONE_NUMBER>,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain

words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air

Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United

States Environmental Protection Agency.

    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Comments

III. Final Action

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-

hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the

previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was

changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). By

statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)

are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of

a new or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) provides basic

requirements for SIPs, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and

modeling, to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These

requirements are set out in several ``infrastructure elements,'' listed

in section 110(a)(2).

    Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP

submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and the contents of that

submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In

particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time a state

develops and submits its 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 a state's existing SIP already

contains. In the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, states typically have

met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through

earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. In a

guidance issued on October 2, 2007, EPA noted that, to the extent an

existing SIP already meets the section 110(a)(2) requirements, states

need only to certify that fact via a letter to EPA.\1\

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

    \1\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality

Policy Division, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (Oct. 2, 2007).

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

    On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rule entitled,

``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans

for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS'' (73 FR 16205). In the rule, EPA made a

finding for each state that it had submitted or had failed to submit a

complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section

110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In

particular, EPA found that Wyoming had submitted a complete SIP

(``Infrastructure SIP'') to meet these requirements.

    On May 23, 2011, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPR) for the State of Wyoming (76 FR 29680) to act on the State's

Infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Specifically, in the NPR

EPA proposed approval of Wyoming's SIP as meeting the requirements of

section 110(a)(2) elements (A), (B), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (K),

(L) and (M) with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA also proposed

approval of revisions to Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations

(WAQSR) Chapter 6, Section 4 (PSD) from Wyoming's May 11, 2011

submittal, specifically revisions which meet the requirements the phase

2 implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (72 FR 71612, November

20, 2005), the NSR implementation rule for PM2.5 (73 FR

28321, May 16, 2008), and the inserted definition of ``replacement

unit,'' which reflects the language of 40 CFR 51.166 (b)(32)(i) through

(iv). EPA did not propose action on sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i), (I), and

the visibility protection requirement of section 110(a)(2)(J).\2\ EPA

proposed to disapprove 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) on the basis that Wyoming's

SIP-approved PSD program does not properly regulate greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions.

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

    \2\ See the NPR (76 FR 29680) for further explanation regarding

the omission of elements 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(I) from the

proposal.

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

    On June 3, 2010, EPA promulgated the ``Prevention of Significant

Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (``Tailoring

Rule'') (75 FR 31514), setting out requirements for application of PSD

to emissions sources of greenhouse gases (GHG). On December 13, 2010,

EPA issued a finding of substantial inadequacy and SIP call for seven

states, including Wyoming, on the basis that the states' SIP-approved

PSD programs did not apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources as required

under the Tailoring Rule (75 FR 77698). Next, on December 29, 2010, EPA

issued a finding that the seven states had failed to submit revisions

to their SIPs as necessary to correct this inadequacy (75 FR 81874).

Finally, on December 30, 2010, EPA established a federal implementation

plan (FIP) in the seven states to ensure that PSD permits for sources

emitting GHGs could be issued in accordance with the Tailoring Rule (75

FR 82246). As the Wyoming PSD program is currently subject to a finding

of substantial inadequacy and SIP call, and Wyoming had not taken steps

to remedy the inadequacy, EPA proposed to disapprove infrastructure

elements 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) in the NPR as each requires the SIP to

contain a PSD program that meets the requirements of part C of title I

of the Act.

Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure

requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and

PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country.

Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns

about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive

issues in the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP

submissions.\3\ The commenters specifically raised concerns involving

provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements that it would

address two issues separately and not as part of actions on the

infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) existing provisions related to

excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction

at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies

addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); and (ii) existing

provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's

discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions

limits with limited public process or without requiring further

approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (``director's

discretion''). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues

for which EPA likewise stated that it would address the issues

separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new source review

programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and

EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (``minor source new

source review (NSR)''); and (ii) existing provisions for PSD programs

that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR

Improvement Rule,'' 67 Fed. Reg. 80,186 (December 31, 2002), as amended

by 72 FR 32,526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). In light of the

comments, EPA now believes that its statements in various proposed

actions on infrastructure SIPs with respect to these four individual

issues should be explained in greater depth with respect to these

issues.

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

    \3\ See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated

May 31, 2011. Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse

comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that

these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this

rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this

rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate

rulemaking action to which they apply.

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

    EPA intended the statements in the proposals concerning these four

issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice of the

potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of some

states that might

require future corrective action. EPA did not want states, regulated

entities, or members of the public to be under the misconception that

the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP submission of a given

state should be interpreted as a reapproval of certain types of

provisions that might exist buried in the larger existing SIP for such

state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted that the Agency believes

that some states may have existing SIP approved SSM provisions that are

contrary to the CAA and EPA policy, but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA

is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions

with regard to excess emissions during SSM of operations at

facilities.'' EPA further explained, for informational purposes, that

``EPA plans to address such State regulations in the future.'' EPA made

similar statements, for similar reasons, with respect to the director's

discretion, minor source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective

was to make clear that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or

implicit reapproval of any existing provisions that relate to these

four substantive issues.

    Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently interpreted

these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM

provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts

of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA

was merely postponing taking final action on the issue in the context

of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the

contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for

certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any

misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions.

EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not

require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive

issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with

separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP

submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it

was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP

submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to

be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k)

or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from

EPA's statements, however, we want to explain more fully the Agency's

reasons for concluding that these four potential substantive issues in

existing SIPs may be addressed separately.

    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA

section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP

submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the

Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national

primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and

that these SIPS are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,

and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of

specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA

has historically referred to these particular submissions that states

must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as

``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the

statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of

SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a

SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other

different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions

required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,

``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility

protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program

submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host

of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific

matters.

    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general

requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)

provides more details concerning the required contents of these

infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory

provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of

disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal

authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions,

and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and

substantive provisions.\4\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)

are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require

interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through

guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\5\

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

    \4\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must

provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under

state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)

provides that states must have a substantive program to address

certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section

110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to

address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event

of such an emergency.

    \5\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure

that each SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent significant

contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states. This

provision contains numerous terms that require substantial

rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic points as what

constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the

NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)

(defining, among other things, the phrase ``contribute significantly

to nonattainment'').

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

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) states that ``each'' SIP

submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long

noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally

inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment

SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for

these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\6\ This illustrates that

EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be

applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA

has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of

the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without

concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),

because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate

transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states

to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with

substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with

different schedules.\7\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that

subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into

separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS

where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere

submission addressing basic structural aspects of the SIP. Finally, EPA

notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or

as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS

and the

attendant infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example,

the monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of

section 110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what

might be necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an

infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might

be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to

an existing NAAQS.\8\

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

    \6\ See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25,162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005)

(explaining relationship between timing requirement of section

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

    \7\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP

submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, ``Guidance for State

Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding

Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from

William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to

Regional Air Division Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.

    \8\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure

ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.

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

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required

under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),

and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements

for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by

part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section

110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear

that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirement

applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D

also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)

with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be

limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type

of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2)

and not others.

    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of

section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA

to interpret that language in the context of acting on the

infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent

ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has

adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against

this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes

that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP

submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in

question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in

the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for

infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS.

    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for

the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS

and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\9\ Within this guidance document,

EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what

the Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs,

which it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including

emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment

and maintenance of the standards.'' \10\ As further identification of

these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the

guidance document included a short description of the various elements

of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of

issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such

infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic

requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an

interpretation of '' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief

description of the required elements.'' \11\ EPA also stated its belief

that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self

explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should

enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA

Regions.'' \12\ For the one exception to that general assumption,

however, i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other

infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the

submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each

state would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine

the scope of a state's submittal based on an assessment of how the

requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic

structure of the SIP for the NAAQS in question.

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

    \9\ See, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,

Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors,

Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance''). EPA

issued comparable guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''

from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to

Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25,

2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').

    \10\ Id., at page 2.

    \11\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.

    \12\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by

commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues

indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and

indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in

order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be

addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed

at other times and by other means.

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

    Significantly, the 2007 Guidance did not explicitly refer to the

SSM, director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as

among specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the

context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific

recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues

even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues

implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform

issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance, however,

EPA did not indicate to states that it intended to interpret these

provisions as requiring a substantive submission to address these

specific issues in the context of the infrastructure SIPs for these

NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief that

the states should make submissions in which they established that they

have the basic SIP structure necessary to implement, maintain, and

enforce the NAAQS. EPA believes that states can establish that they

have the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding that there may be

potential deficiencies within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals

mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues

that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as

required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to

be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as

separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions.

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP

requirement is reasonable, because it would not be feasible to read

section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern,

review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for

purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic

structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS.

Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and

regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include

some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully

up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the

purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new

or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the

SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to

determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are

applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus

attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP

revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for

example, EPA's 2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS because of the absence of underlying EPA regulations for

emergency episodes for this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of

relevant provisions in existing SIPs.

    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of

section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues

and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing

SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate

tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged

SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP

call'' whenever the Agency determines that a SIP is substantially

inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate

transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\13\ Section 110(k)(6)

authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past

approvals of SIP submissions.\14\ Significantly, EPA's determination

that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the appropriate time

and place to address all potential existing SIP problems does not

preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on provisions in section

110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a later time. For example,

although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all

existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course

of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA believes that section

110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that the Agency cites in

the course of addressing the issue in a subsequent action.\15\

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

    \13\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific

SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of

Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State

Implementation Plan Revision,'' 74 FR 21,639 (April 18, 2011).

    \14\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors

in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See,

``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State

Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82,536 (Dec. 30, 2010).

EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove

numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had

approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38,664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR

34,641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,

California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67,062 (November 16,

2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57,051 (November 3,

2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

    \15\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado

on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion

provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section

110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42,342 at 42,344 (July 21, 2010)

(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR

4,540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

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

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one letter on June 22, 2011 containing comments from

WildEarth Guardians (WEG), an environmental organization. The

significant comments made in WEG's June 22, 2011 letter and EPA's

responses to those comments are given below.

    Comment No. 1: The commenter expressed concern that the Wyoming SIP

is failing to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Sublette County.

As evidence, the commenter cited data from three monitors in Sublette

County. The commenter argued that the data establish the Wyoming SIP is

failing to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and that EPA

cannot approve the Wyoming infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS

as a result.

    EPA Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's view that the

monitor data presented by the commenter has a bearing on EPA's action

on the State's infrastructure SIP submission. First, there are

currently no nonattainment areas designated in Wyoming for the 1997 8-

hour ozone NAAQS. Thus, the State is not currently under an obligation

to submit a SIP to meet the requirements of Part D of title I. More

importantly, as explained in the NPR, Part D requirements are outside

the scope of this action. EPA therefore disagrees with the assertion

that, as a result of the cited monitoring data, EPA cannot approve the

Wyoming infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

    Comment No. 2: The commenter asserted that the Wyoming SIP does not

meet the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 58 for the 1997 8-hour

ozone NAAQS, and that EPA should therefore disapprove the Wyoming

infrastructure SIP for element 110(a)(2)(B). The commenter argued that

because the cities of Casper and Cheyenne each have an urbanized

population greater than 50,000, both areas are required to have ozone

monitors under 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D. The commenter concluded

that, as neither city contains an ozone monitor, Wyoming's SIP does not

fulfill the requirements of 110(a)(2)(B). The commenter further argued

that a discussion of monitoring in Pinedale, Casper, Rock Springs, and

Gillette in a recent Wyoming Monitoring Network Plan demonstrates a

need for ``a more expansive network'' of ozone monitors in the State.

    EPA Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter's conclusion with

respect to whether the monitoring network required by the Wyoming SIP

meets the current requirements. Table D-2 in Appendix D to 40 CFR part

58 sets the minimum number of required State and Local Air Monitoring

Stations (SLAMS) for ozone. Footnote 4 to the table explicitly

indicates that minimum monitoring requirements in the last column

should apply in the absence of a design value. While both Casper and

Cheyenne have populations greater than 50,000 (but less than 350,000),

they lack ozone design values at this time. Therefore, the minimum

number of required SLAMS monitors for ozone for Casper and Cheyenne is

zero, and the current monitoring network, with respect to those two

cities, meets the current requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D

for ozone. The 2010 network assessment cited by the commenter and the

2011 network plan linked to by the commenter do not provide any

information to the contrary. EPA therefore disagrees with the

commenter's conclusion that the State's infrastructure SIP is not

approvable at this time.

    EPA notes, however, that it has proposed revisions to the current

monitoring requirements for ozone. On July 16, 2009, EPA proposed to

change the monitoring requirements, in part to insure that smaller

metropolitan areas with populations between 50,000 and 350,000 that

currently do not have ozone monitors will get them, in order to assure

the health benefits of the NAAQS in these areas.\16\ If EPA finalizes

the proposed revisions to the monitoring requirements, this would help

to address the concerns of the commenter.

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

    \16\ See, ``Ambient Ozone Monitoring Regulations: Revisions to

Network Design Requirements,'' 74 FR 34525, at 34527-28 (July 16,

2009).

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

    Comment No. 3: The commenter expressed concern that monitoring is

only required from May to September, whereas areas such as Sublette

County have maximum ozone concentrations in the winter months. The

commenter argued that EPA must assure the Wyoming SIP requires

monitoring during the wintertime. According to the commenter, the

failure to monitor in the winter months would be grounds for

disapproval of the infrastructure SIP under section 110(a)(2)(B).

    EPA Response: EPA is concerned with the wintertime ozone issues in

western states. However, with respect to the season during which

monitoring is currently required, the required ozone monitoring seasons

are provided in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix D, which currently specifies

monitoring from May through September. The proposed revision to the

ozone monitoring

requirements discussed in the response to comment 2 above would also

revise the ozone monitoring season for Wyoming (74 FR at 34538). If EPA

finalizes the proposed revision to the ozone monitoring season for

Wyoming, the monitoring season will be extended and EPA anticipates

that this would help to address the underlying concern of the

commenter. At this point, however, Wyoming complies with the existing

monitoring season requirements of Appendix D. Thus, the comment gives

no basis for EPA to change its proposed approval of the Wyoming

infrastructure SIP for element 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 8-hour ozone

NAAQS.

    Comment No. 4: The commenter expressed concern that Wyoming's title

V program does not increase permit fees each year in accordance with

the Consumer Price Index as required by title V of the CAA, citing 42

U.S.C. 7661a(b)(3)(B)(v) and 40 CFR 70.9(b)(2)(iv). The commenter

argues that this creates an issue under section 110(a)(2)(L) that

precludes approval of the State's infrastructure SIP.

    EPA Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. As stated in the

text of the section, the fees specified in 110(a)(2)(L) are no longer

applicable to title V operating permit programs after approval of such

programs. As noted in the NPR, final approval of the title V operating

permit program became effective April 23, 1999 (64 FR 8523, Feb. 22,

1990). Therefore, EPA concludes that the Wyoming infrastructure SIP for

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS meets the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the title V program.

III. Final Action

    In this action, EPA is approving the following section 110(a)(2)

infrastructure elements for Wyoming for the 1997 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B),

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (K), (L), and (M). EPA is also approving

Wyoming's May 11, 2011 SIP submittal that revises the State's PSD

program.

    In this action, EPA is disapproving section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J)

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP

submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable

Federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in

reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this

action merely approves some state law as meeting Federal requirements

and disapproves other state law because it does not meet Federal

requirements; this action 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.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and

other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot

take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal

Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 23, 2011. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule

does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of

judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for

judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness

of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in

proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 30, 2011.

James B. Martin,

Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    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: 2 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

0

2. Section 52.2620 is amended by:

0

a. In paragraph (c)(1), revising the entry under Chapter 6 for

``Section 4''.

0

b. In paragraph (e), add an entry for ``XIX'', Section 110(a)(2)

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Sec.  52.2620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

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

                                                       State adopted and   EPA approval date

         State Citation              Title/subject      effective date     and  citation\1\      Explanations

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

                                                  * * * * * * *

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

                                                    Chapter 6

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

                                                  * * * * * * *

Section 4.......................  Prevention of       7/8/10 and 9/7/10.  6/30/11, 7/25/11

                                   Significant                             [Insert page

                                   Deterioration.                          number where the

                                                                           document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *

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

\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision that is listed in this table, consult

  the Federal Register cited in this column for that particular provision.

* * * * *

    (e) * * *

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

                                      Applicable

    Name of nonregulatory SP      geographic or non-    State submittal    EPA approval date      Explanation

            provision               attainment area    date/adopted date   and  citation \3\

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

                                                  * * * * * * *

XIX. Section 110(a)(2)            Statewide.........  12/7/2007 and 12/   6/30/11, 7/25/11    ..................

 Infrastructure Requirements for                       10/2007.            [Insert page

 the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.                                              number where the

                                                                           document begins].

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

\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision that is listed in this table, consult

  the Federal Register cited in this column for that particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2011-18423 Filed 7-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30474-30475]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Advisory
Circular (AC): Reporting of Laser Illumination of Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our

intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval
to renew an information collection. The collection involves the
reporting of unauthorized illumination of aircraft by lasers. The
information to be collected will be used to assist law enforcement and
provide support for recommended mitigation actions to be taken to
ensure continued safe and orderly flight operations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 27, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Barbara
Hall, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 10101 Hillwood Parkway,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Hall by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0698.
    Title: Advisory Circular (AC): Reporting of Laser Illumination of
Aircraft.
    Form Numbers: Advisory Circular 70-2A, Reporting of Laser
Illumination of Aircraft.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: Advisory Circular 70-2A provides guidance to civilian
air crews on the reporting of laser illumination incidents and
recommended mitigation actions to be taken in order to ensure continued
safe and orderly flight operations. Information is collected from
pilots and aircrews that are affected by an unauthorized illumination
by lasers. The requested reporting involves an immediate broadcast
notification to Air Traffic Control (ATC) when the incident occurs, as
well as a broadcast warning of the incident if the aircrew is flying in
uncontrolled airspace. In addition, the AC requests that the aircrew
supply a written report of the incident and send it by fax or email to
the Washington Operations Control Complex (WOCC) as soon as possible.
    Respondents: Approximately 1,100 pilots and crewmembers.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 183 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2018.
Karen Shutt,
Manager, Performance, Policy, and Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2018-13931 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 217 (Tuesday, November 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 69772]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28622]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Damage
Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite Rotorcraft Structures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. To obtain type certification of a rotorcraft, an applicant
must show that the rotorcraft complies with specific certification
requirements. To show compliance, the applicant must submit
substantiating data.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by January 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Room 441, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0753.
    Title: Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of Composite
Rotorcraft Structures.
    Form Numbers: There are no forms associated with this collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The ``Damage Tolerance and Fatigue Evaluation of
Composite Rotorcraft Structures'' final rule (76 FR 74655) revised
parts 27 and 29 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations to add
new certification standards for normal and transport category
rotorcraft to address advances in structural damage tolerance and
fatigue substantiation technology for composite rotorcraft structures.
To obtain type certification of a rotorcraft, an applicant must show
that the rotorcraft complies with specific certification requirements.
To show compliance, the applicant must submit substantiating data. FAA
engineers or designated engineer representatives from industry review
the required data submittals to determine if the rotorcraft complies
with the applicable minimum safety requirements for damage tolerance
and fatigue evaluation of composite structures and that the rotorcraft
has no unsafe features in the composite structures.
    Respondents: Approximately 6 applicants for certification for 10.5
part 27 rotorcraft and 6 part 29 rotorcraft.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 178 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 109 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 4, 2015.
Ronda Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2015-28622 Filed 11-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 5827-5828]
[DOCID:fr03fe06-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

January 30, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER01-205-011; ER98-2640-009; ER98-4590-007; ER99-
1610-014.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.; Northern States Power
Company and Northern States Power Company (Wisconsin); Public Service
Company of Colorado; Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services, Inc. on behalf of Southwestern
Public Service Co. submits a change in status report relating to SPS's
market-based rate authority.
    Filed Date: January 23, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060127-0125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-191-002.
    Applicants: Peaker LLC.
    Description: Peaker LLC submits its triennial updated market
analysis.
    Filed Date: January 24, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060127-0126.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 14, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1162-000; ER05-1163-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.; Entergy Mississippi, Inc. et
al.
    Description: Entergy Mississippi, Inc. notifies the Commission that
the Interconnection Agreement with Attala Transmission LLC accepted by
the August 25 Order became effective on January 20, 2006.
    Filed Date: January 24, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060126-0263.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 14, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-250-001.
    Applicants: Knedergy LLC.
    Description: Knedergy LLC submits the petition for acceptance of
amended rate schedule, waivers, and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: January 23, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060126-0022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-364-001.
    Applicants: Trans-Elect NTD Path 15, LLC.
    Description: Trans-Elect NTD Path 15, LLC submits revisions to its
Transmission Owner Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 1,
Appendix I, to reflect the annual update for the TRBAA.
    Filed Date: January 23, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060126-0023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-510-001.
    Applicants: Energy Endeavors, LLC.
    Description: Energy Endeavors, LLC submits an amended Petition for
Acceptance of Initial Rate Schedule, Waivers and Blanket Authority.
    Filed Date: January 23, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060126-0025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-525-000.
    Applicants: Global Energy Investments Group, LLC.
    Description: Global Energy Investment Group, LLC's petition for
acceptance of initial rate schedule, waivers, and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: January 23, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060124-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-527-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits First Revised Sheet No. 9
of Rate Schedule 302 and a Letter Agreement with Missouri Joint
Municipal Electric Utility Commission.
    Filed Date: January 23, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060125-0037.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-528-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits its First Revised Sheet
No. 11 of Rate Schedule 303 and a Letter Agreement with Missouri Joint
Municipal Electric Utility Commission.
    Filed Date: January 23, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060125-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-529-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits the Second Revised Sheet
No. 11 of Second Revised Rate Schedule 300 and a Letter Agreement with
Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission.
    Filed Date: January 23, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060125-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-530-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co. submits revised rate
sheets to the Frederick Avenue Wholesale Distribution Load
Interconnection Facilities Agreement with the City of Moreno Valley.
    Filed Date: January 23, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060125-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 13, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-532-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Service Company.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc.
et al.

submits proposed revisions to ATSI's Attachment O transmission rate
formula under Midwest ISO's OATT and EMT, FERC Electric Tariff 3rd Rev
Vol No. 1.
    Filed Date: January 24, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060126-0016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 14, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-534-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Power, LLC.
    Description: Cleco Power, LLC submits pro forma revisions to
Attachment K--(Large Generator Interconnection Procedures and Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement) in compliance with its OATT.
    Filed Date: January 24, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060126-0014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 14, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-535-000.
    Applicants: Pinnacle West Energy Corporation.
    Description: Pinnacle West Energy Corp. submits a Notice of
Cancellation and an Order 614 Complaint canceled rate schedule sheet to
terminate their market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: January 24, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060126-0018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 14, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-536-000.
    Applicants: GenWest, LLC.
    Description: GenWest, LLC submits a notice of cancellation and an
Order No. 614 compliant canceled rate schedule sheet that terminate
GenWest's market-based rate tariffs.
    Filed Date: January 24, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060126-0017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 14, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-537-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corp.
    Description: The American Electric Power Services Corp., as agent
for Kentucky Power Co., requests acceptance of an interconnection &
local delivery service agreement between KPCo and the City of
Vanceburg, KY.
    Filed Date: January 24, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060126-0019.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 14, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-539-000.
    Applicants: Central Mississippi Generating Company.
    Description: Central Mississippi Generating Co., LLC submits a
Notice of Cancellation of its market-based rate tariff, FERC Electric
Tariff, original Volume No. 1 under.
    Filed Date: January 24, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060127-0128.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 14, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER97-2801-010; ER03-478-008; ER06-200-003; ER03-
1326-003; ER05-534-004; ER05-1262-002; ER03-296-006; ER01-3121-005;
ER02-418-004; ER03-416-007; ER05-332-004; ER06-1-002; ER03-951-006;
ER04-94-004; ER02-417-004; ER05-1146-004; ER05-481-004.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp; PPM Energy, Inc.; Big Horn Wind Project
LLC; Colorado Green Holdings LLC; Eastern Desert Power, LLC; Flat Rock
Windpower, LLC; Flying Cloud Power Partners, LLC; Klamath Energy LLC;
Klamath Generation LLC; Klondike Wind Power LLC; Klondike Wind Power II
LLC; Leaning Juniper Wind Power LLC; Moraine Wind LLC; Mountain View
Power Partners III, LLC; Phoenix Wind Power LLC; Shiloh I Wind Project,
LLC; Trimont Wind I LLC.
    Description: Notice of potential departure from characteristics
relied upon by Commission in accepting market-based rates.
    Filed Date: January 23, 2006.
    Accession Number: 20060127-0124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, February 13, 2006.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1479 Filed 2-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8196-8197]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Leach Xpress
and Rayne Xpress Expansion Projects

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.........  CP15-514-000
Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC........  CP15-539-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 8, 2015, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gas)
filed an application in Docket No. CP15-514-000 requesting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section
7(c) and 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, operate, abandon in-
place, and maintain certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The
proposed Leach XPress Project, located in West Virginia, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, would provide about 1.5 million dekatherms of natural gas
per day of firm transportation service to natural gas consumers served
by the Columbia Gas pipeline systems.
    Additionally, on July 29, 2015, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC
(Columbia Gulf) filed an application in Docket No. CP15-539-000
requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant
to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct, own, and operate
the proposed Rayne XPress Expansion Project. The Rayne Express
Expansion Project, located in Kentucky, would add new compression and
provide about 621,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation on
Columbia Gulf's system. Together, these proposals are referred to in
this notice as ``the Projects.''
    On June 22 and August 11, 2015, respectively, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) issued its Notice of
Application for the Leach XPress Project and Rayne XPress Expansion
Project. Among other things, these notices alerted other agencies
issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all
necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a
federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staff's final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Projects. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned
schedule for completion of the final EIS for the Projects.

                    Schedule for Environmental Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issuance of Notice of Availability    September 1, 2016.
 of the final EIS.
90-day Federal Authorization          November 30, 2016.
 Decision Deadline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will
be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Columbia Gas plans to construct approximately 160 miles of new
natural gas pipeline in West Virginia (Marshall County), Ohio
(Fairfield, Hocking, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry and Vinton
Counties) and Pennsylvania (Greene County), two new compressor stations
in Ohio (Noble and Jackson Counties), one new compressor station in
West Virginia (Marshall County), and modify two existing compressor
stations in West Virginia and Ohio.
    Columbia Gulf plans to construct and operate 51,800 horsepower of
new compression in two new compressor stations located in Carter,
Menifee and Montgomery Counties, Kentucky, and modify the existing
Means Measurement and Regulation Station in Means and Montgomery
County, Kentucky.

Background

    On October 9, 2014, the Commission staff granted Columbia Gas's
request to use the FERC's Pre-filing environmental review process and
assigned the Leach XPress Project Docket No. PF14-23-000. On January
13, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Leach XPress Project,
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public
Scoping Meetings (NOI). Additionally, on September 4, 2015, the
Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for the Rayne XPress Expansion Project and Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues.
    Both NOIs were sent to federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; affected landowners; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes and regional
organizations; commentors and other interested parties; and local
libraries and newspapers. The primary issues raised by the commentors
included federally listed bats, forested plant and animal habitat,
freshwater mussel habitat, salamander habitat, potential future
subsidence of mining land, and effects on public health and safety.
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources, and the
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection are cooperating
agencies in the preparation of the EIS.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' for the project you wish to access
excluding the last three digits

(i.e., CP15-514, CP15-539), and follow the instructions. For assistance
with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link
on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule
makings.

    Dated: February 10, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03324 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12483-12484]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0008]

Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a

forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Circulatory System
Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. The general
function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to
the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the
public.

DATES: The meeting will take place virtually on April 6, 2021, from 9
a.m. Eastern Time to 6 p.m. Eastern Time.

ADDRESSES: Please note that due to the impact of this COVID-19
pandemic, all meeting participants will be joining this advisory
committee meeting via an online teleconferencing platform. Answers to
commonly asked questions including information regarding special
accommodations due to a disability may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/about-advisory-committees/common-questions-and-answers-about-fda-advisory-committee-meetings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aden Asefa, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5214, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-0400, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before the
meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: The meeting presentations will be heard, viewed, captioned,
and recorded through an online teleconferencing platform. On April 6,
2021, the committee will discuss, make recommendations, and vote on
information regarding the premarket approval application for the
TransMedics Organ Care System (OCS) Heart, by TransMedics, Inc. The
proposed Indication for Use for the TransMedics OCS Heart, is as
follows: The TransMedics Organ Care System (OCS) Heart System is a
portable extracorporeal heart perfusion and monitoring system indicated
for the resuscitation, preservation, and assessment of donor hearts in
a near-physiologic, normothermic, and beating state intended for a
potential transplant recipient.
    OCS Heart is indicated for donor hearts with one or more of the
following characteristics:

 Expected cross-clamp or ischemic time >=4 hours due to donor
or recipient characteristics (e.g., donor- recipient geographical
distance, expected recipient surgical time); or
     Expected total cross-clamp time of >=2 hours PLUS one of
the following risk factors:
     Donor Age >=55 years; or
     Donors with history of cardiac arrest and downtime >=20
minutes; or
     Donor history of alcoholism; or
     Donor history of diabetes; or
     Donor Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction <=50 percent but
>=40 percent; or
     Donor history of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (septal or
posterior wall thickness of >12 and <=16 mm); or
     Donor angiogram with luminal irregularities but no
significant coronary artery disease.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at
the time of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material
will be posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material
and the link to the online teleconference meeting room will be
available at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/circulatory-system-devices-panel/2021-meeting-materials-circulatory-system-devices-panel. Select the link for the 2021 Meeting Materials. The meeting will
include slide presentations with audio components to allow the
presentation of materials in a manner that most closely resembles an
in-person advisory committee meeting.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 30, 2021. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled on
April 6, 2021, between approximately 1 p.m. Eastern Time and 2 p.m.
Eastern Time. Those individuals interested in making formal oral
presentations should notify the contact person (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). The notification should include a brief statement
of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to
present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before March 22, 2021. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by March 23,
2021.
    For press inquiries, please contact the Office of Media Affairs at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Artair Mallet at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/about-advisory-committees/public-conduct-during-fda-advisory-committee-meetings for procedures on public conduct during
advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 25, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-04371 Filed 3-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P