[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38185-38191]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15468]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0219; FRL-9691-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of North
Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the
North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State
of North Carolina through the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division of Air Quality (DAQ), on
December 17, 2007. North Carolina's December 17, 2007, SIP revision
addresses regional haze for the first implementation period.
Specifically, this SIP revision addresses the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require states to prevent any
future and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas (national parks and wilderness areas) caused
by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a
wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze
program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA is finalizing a limited approval of North Carolina's
December 17, 2007, SIP revision to implement the regional haze
requirements for North Carolina on the basis that this SIP revision, as
a whole, strengthens the North Carolina SIP. In a separate action
published on June 7, 2012, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of this
same SIP revision because of the deficiencies in the State's regional
haze SIP revision arising from the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) to EPA of the Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective July 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0219. 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 for
further information. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, 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. Michele Notarianni can
be reached at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this final action?
II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
III. What is the effect of this final action?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this final action?

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic
compounds). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) which impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the
clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5
can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' See 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge

about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment
were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999 (64 FR 35713), the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). The RHR revised the
existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR
51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December
17, 2007.
    On December 17, 2007, NC DENR submitted a revision to North
Carolina's SIP to address regional haze in the State's and other
states' Class I areas. On February 28, 2012, EPA published an action
proposing a limited approval of North Carolina's December 17, 2007, SIP
revision to address the first implementation period for regional
haze.\1\ See 77 FR 11858. EPA proposed a limited approval of North
Carolina's December 17, 2007, SIP revision to implement the regional
haze requirements for North Carolina on the basis that this revision,
as a whole, strengthens the North Carolina SIP. See section II of this
rulemaking for a summary of the comments received on the proposed
actions and EPA's responses to these comments. Detailed background
information and EPA's rationale for the proposed action is provided in
EPA's February 28, 2012, proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a separate action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR
33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the North Carolina
regional haze SIP because of deficiencies in the State's regional
haze SIP submittal arising from the State's reliance on CAIR to meet
certain regional haze requirements. This final limited disapproval
triggers a 24-month clock by which a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) or EPA-approved SIP must be in place to address the
deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the remand of CAIR, EPA issued a new rule in 2011 to
address the interstate transport of NOX and SO2
in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the
Transport Rule,'' also known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR)). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions than would best available retrofit technology (BART) in the
states in which the Transport Rule applies (including North Carolina).
See 76 FR 82219. Based on this proposed finding, EPA also proposed to
revise the RHR to allow states to substitute participation in the
trading programs under the Transport Rule for source-specific BART. EPA
finalized this finding and RHR revision on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642).
    Also on December 30, 2011, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule
(including the provisions that would have sunset CAIR and the CAIR
FIPs) and instructed the EPA to continue to administer CAIR pending the
outcome of the court's decision on the petitions for review challenging
the Transport Rule. EME Homer City v. EPA, No. 11-1302.

II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?

    EPA received two sets of comments on the February 28, 2012,
rulemaking proposing a limited approval of North Carolina's December
17, 2007, regional haze SIP revision. Specifically, the comments were
received from the Southern Environmental Law Center (on behalf of the
National Parks Conservation Association and the Sierra Club) and the
U.S. National Park Service. Full sets of the comments provided by all
of the aforementioned entities (hereinafter referred to as ``the
Commenter'') are provided in the docket for today's final action. A
summary of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter incorporates by reference comments that it
submitted to EPA on February 28, 2012, regarding the Agency's December
30, 2011, proposed rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule is
``Better than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART for North Carolina and other states subject to the Transport Rule.
See 76 FR 82219. The Commenter also restates several of these comments,
including the following: the Transport Rule does not comply with EPA's
criteria for an alternative to BART; the State cannot rely on the
proposed ``Better than BART'' rulemaking given the DC Circuit's action
staying implementation of the Transport Rule; EPA has not accounted for
the differences in averaging time under BART, the Transport Rule, and
in measuring visibility impacts; EPA's modeling assumed nitrate levels
that are often lower than real-world conditions; in some instances, EPA
relied on a single monitor to assess visibility conditions in multiple
Class I areas; EPA uses a simple arithmetic mean to conclude that
visibility improvements will be greater under the Transport Rule than
BART; and EPA's proposed ``Better than BART'' determination relies on a
2014 base case that does not account for permanent emissions reductions
at non-BART eligible sources.
    Response 1: These comments are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
In today's action, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of North
Carolina's regional haze SIP. EPA did not propose to find that
participation in the Transport Rule is an alternative to BART in this
action nor did EPA reopen discussions on the CAIR provisions as they
relate to BART.\2\ As noted above, EPA proposed to find that the
Transport Rule is ``Better than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as
an alternative to BART for North Carolina in a separate action on
December 30, 2011, and the Commenter is merely reiterating and
incorporating its comments on that separate action. EPA addressed these
comments concerning the Transport Rule as a BART alternative in a final
action that was published on June 7, 2012, and has determined that they
do not affect the Agency's ability to finalize a limited approval of
North Carolina's regional haze SIP. EPA's responses to these comments
can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 at
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In a final action published on July 6, 2005, EPA addressed
similar comments related to CAIR and determined that CAIR makes
greater reasonable progress than BART for certain EGUs and
pollutants (70 FR 39138). EPA did not reopen comment on that issue
through this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter asserts that the proposed limited approval
of North Carolina's regional haze SIP violates the CAA and RHR because
a regional haze plan's BART requirements and long-term strategy to
achieve reasonable progress cannot be evaluated in isolation from one
another. The Commenter supports its position by repeating statements
made in its February 28, 2012, comments on the Agency's proposed
December 30, 2011, rulemaking to find that the Transport Rule is
``Better than BART'' and to use the Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART for North Carolina and other states subject to the Transport Rule.
For example, the Commenter states that ``[b]ecause BART is a critical
component to achieving reasonable progress, neither the states nor EPA
are authorized to exempt sources from the RHR's BART requirements
without considering how doing so will affect the overarching reasonable
progress

mandate. * * * Concluding that CSAPR achieves greater reasonable
progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions than BART,
without regard to defined reasonable progress goals, is arbitrary and
contrary to law under the Clean Air Act and the RHR.''
    Response 2: As discussed in the response to Comment 1, today's
action does not address reliance on CAIR or CSAPR to satisfy BART
requirements. Comments related to the approvability of CAIR or CSAPR
for the North Carolina regional haze SIP are therefore beyond the scope
of this rulemaking and were addressed by EPA in a separate action
published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642). EPA addressed the Commenter's
repeated statements regarding the interrelatedness of BART, the LTS,
and RPGs in that final rulemaking action and those responses support
this limited approval action.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See EPA, Response to Comments Document, Regional Haze:
Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited
SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans (76 FR 82219;
December 30, 2011), Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729 (May 30,
2012), pages 49-51 (noting that EPA ``disagree[s] with comments that
we cannot evaluate the BART requirements in isolation from the
reasonable progress requirements. We have on several occasions
undertaken evaluations of a state's BART determination or
promulgated a FIP separately from our evaluation of whether the SIP
as a whole will ensure reasonable progress.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The Commenter asserts that EPA does not have the
authority under the CAA to issue a limited approval of North Carolina's
regional haze SIP. The Commenter contends that section 110(k) of the
Act only allows EPA to fully approve, partially approve and partially
disapprove, conditionally approve, or fully disapprove a SIP.
    Response 3: As discussed in the September 7, 1992, EPA memorandum
cited in the notice of proposed rulemaking,\4\ although section 110(k)
of the CAA may not expressly provide authority for limited approvals,
the plain language of section 301(a) does provide ``gap-filling''
authority authorizing the Agency to ``prescribe such regulations as are
necessary to carry out'' EPA's CAA functions. EPA may rely on section
301(a) in conjunction with the Agency's SIP approval authority in
section 110(k)(3) to issue limited approvals where it has determined
that a submittal strengthens a given state's implementation plan and
that the provisions meeting the applicable requirements of the Act are
not separable from the provisions that do not meet the Act's
requirements. EPA has adopted the limited approval approach numerous
times in SIP actions across the nation over the last twenty years. A
limited approval action is appropriate here because EPA has determined
that North Carolina's SIP revision addressing regional haze, as a
whole, strengthen the State's implementation plan and because the
provisions in the SIP revision are not separable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (``1992 Calcagni Memorandum'') located at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenter states that EPA's action ``conflicts with the plain
language of the [CAA]'' and cites several federal appellate court
decisions to support its contention that section 110(k) of the Act
limits EPA to a full approval, ``a conditional approval, a partial
approval and disapproval, or a full disapproval.'' However, adopting
the Commenter's position would ignore section 301 and violate the ``
`fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a
statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in
the overall statutory scheme' * * *. A court must therefore interpret
the statute `as a symmetrical and coherent regulatory scheme,' * * *
and `fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious whole.' '' FDA v.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (quoting
Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989),
Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995), and FTC v. Mandel
Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959)). Furthermore, the cases cited
by the Commenter did not involve challenges to a limited approval
approach, and one of the cases, Abramowitz v. EPA, 832 F.2d 1071 (9th
Cir. 1988), predates the 1990 CAA amendments enacting section 110(k).
    Comment 4: The Commenter contends that it was inappropriate for the
State to ``rel[y] on CAIR (and now CSAPR)'' in determining RPGs and
that due, in part, to this reliance, the State ``failed to evaluate
numerous sources that contribute significantly to visibility impairment
at the State's Class I areas'' and that it ``cast doubts on the
validity of DAQ's modeling.'' The Commenter therefore believes that EPA
should not approve the SIP unless the State considers additional
reasonable progress from the 16 electric generating units (EGUs)
excluded from the reasonable progress analyses and the State conducts
further analyses in setting its RPGs (or EPA ``ensure[s] that DAQ
follows through on its commitment to re-evaluate its ability to meet
its RPGs in the five-year progress review, pursuant to 40 CFR
52.308(g)''). The Commenter also states that ``even when the uniform
rate of progress [URP] is predicted to be met, the state still has an
obligation `to go beyond the URP analysis in establishing RPGs * * * to
determine whether additional progress would be reasonable based on the
statutory factors.' ''
    Response 4: The State took into account emissions reductions
expected from CAIR to determine the 2018 RPGs for its Class I areas,
and this approach was fully consistent with EPA guidance at the time of
SIP development. In the regional haze program, uncertainties associated
with modeled emissions projections into the future are addressed
through the requirement under the RHR to submit periodic progress
reports in the form of a SIP revision. Specifically, 40 CFR 51.308(g)
requires each state to submit a report every five years evaluating
progress toward the RPGs for each mandatory Class I area located in the
state and for each Class I area outside the state that may be affected
by emissions from the state. Since this five-year progress re-
evaluation is a mandatory requirement, it is unnecessary for EPA to
take additional measures to ``ensure'' that the State meets its
reporting obligation.
    Regarding the need to go beyond the URP analysis when establishing
RPGs, EPA affirmed in the RHR that the URP is not a ``presumptive
target;'' rather, it is an analytical requirement for setting RPGs. See
64 FR 35731. In determining RPGs for the North Carolina Class I areas,
the State identified sources through its area of influence methodology
for reasonable progress control evaluation and described those
evaluations in its SIP. For its EGUs subject to CAIR, DAQ reviewed the
statutory factors (i.e., the costs of compliance, the time necessary
for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected
sources) as evaluated by EPA for CAIR.
    Comment 5: The Commenter states that in exempting EGUs from a BART
analysis for particulate matter ``on the basis that their contribution
to visibility impairment modeled less than 0.5 deciview, it does not
appear that DAQ considered the cumulative impact of those sources that
did not individually exceed the 0.5 dv threshold, but collectively may
cause or contribute to impairment.'' The Commenter cites to EPA
guidelines in 70 FR 39161 to support its belief that this exemption
threshold ``applies when all visibility impairing pollutants are
modeled together, not one pollutant at a time, as used by DAQ.''
According to the

Commenter, when considering the modeling impacts from coarse
particulate matter (PM10) alone for the exempted sources,
their combined ``contribution to visibility impairment greatly exceeds
the 0.5 dv contribution threshold,'' calling into question the
``validity of DAQ's exemptions of multiple sources from BART.''
    Response 5: As discussed in the proposal, (see section IV.C.6.B.2,
February 28, 2012, 77 FR 11873), North Carolina adequately justified
its contribution threshold of 0.5 deciview. While states have the
discretion to set an appropriate contribution threshold considering the
number of emissions sources affecting the Class I area at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources' impacts, the states' analysis must
be consistent with the CAA, the RHR, and EPA's Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR
Part 51 (BART Guidelines). Consistent with the regulations and EPA's
guidance, ``the contribution threshold should be used to determine
whether an individual source is reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment. You should not aggregate the visibility effects
of multiple sources and compare their collective effects against your
contribution threshold because this would inappropriately create a
`contribution to contribution' test.'' See also 70 FR 39121. North
Carolina's analysis in the regional haze SIP revision was consistent
with EPA's regulations and guidance on the issue of cumulative
analyses.
    Regarding modeling in North Carolina's submittal that uses PM only
for its BART-eligible EGUs, EPA previously determined that this
approach is appropriate for EGUs where the State proposed to rely on
CAIR to satisfy the BART requirements for SO2 and
NOX.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, EPA Memorandum from
Joseph Paisie, Group Leader, Geographic Strategies Group, OAQPS, to
Kay Prince, Branch Chief, EPA Region 4, July 19, 2006, located at:
http://www.epa.gov/visibility/pdfs/memo_2006_07_19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6: The Commenter believes that ``it is simply absurd for
North Carolina to exempt'' Blue Ridge Paper Products from the
obligation to install BART and that the State ``should work with the
company to develop a facility-wide emissions reduction plan by 2013 and
to implement the plan by 2018.''
    Response 6: In accordance with the BART Guidelines, to determine
the level of control that represents BART for each source, the State
first reviewed existing controls on the five BART-eligible units at the
Blue Ridge facility to assess whether these constituted the best
controls currently available, then identified what other technically
feasible controls are available, and finally, evaluated the technically
feasible controls using the five BART statutory factors. The units
subject to the BART requirements at Blue Ridge Paper include the two
recovery furnaces, their associated smelt dissolving tanks, and the
black liquor oxidation system. DAQ concluded that BART for all of these
emissions sources is the existing emissions control systems currently
in place. As discussed in the proposal (see section IV.C.6.C, February
28, 2012, 77 FR 11874), DAQ evaluated the available controls for BART
and determined that these additional controls were either technically
or economically infeasible. EPA has reviewed North Carolina's analyses
and concluded that they were conducted in a manner that is consistent
with EPA's BART Guidelines and EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual
(http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#cccinfo). Therefore, the
conclusions reflect a reasonable application of EPA's guidance to these
sources.
    Comment 7: The Commenter contends that EPA must require North
Carolina to include ``a retirement discussion that provides a realistic
picture of future emissions from BART-subject sources'' in its SIP
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) as there is ``no discussion of
planned or potential EGU (or other source) retirements due to changes
in energy markets, new regulations, and other factors.''
    Response 7: Source retirement and replacement schedules are
explicitly part of the emissions inventory that the State used to
project future conditions. The projected inventories for 2009 and 2018
account for post-2002 emissions reductions from promulgated and
proposed federal, state, local, and site-specific control programs. For
EGUs, the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) was run to estimate emissions
of the proposed and existing units in 2009 and 2018. These results were
adjusted based on state and local air agencies' knowledge of planned
emissions controls at specific EGUs. In the case of North Carolina, DAQ
replaced all IPM 2009 results with emissions projections from Duke
Power's and Progress Energy's North Carolina Clean Smokestacks Act
Compliance Plan for 2006. For non-EGUs, Visibility Improvement State
and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) used recently updated
growth and control data consistent with the data used in EPA's CAIR
analyses and supplemented by state and local air agencies' data and
updated forecasts from the U.S. Department of Energy. These updates are
documented in the MACTEC emissions inventory report ``Documentation of
the 2002 Base Year and 2009 and 2018 Projection Year Emission
Inventories for VISTAS'' dated February 2007 (Appendix D of the North
Carolina regional haze SIP submittal). The technical information
provided in the record demonstrates that the emissions inventory in the
SIP adequately reflects projection 2018 conditions and that the LTS
meets the requirements of the RHR and is approvable. EPA finds that
these inventories provide a reasonable assessment of future emissions
from North Carolina sources.
    Comment 8: According to the Commenter, it was ``inappropriate and
arbitrary for DAQ to use the [State's Clean Smokestack's Act] cost per
ton of SO2 removed as the cost threshold for evaluating
reasonable progress controls. The only rationale DAQ offered in support
of this decision was that DAQ `believes it is not equitable to require
non-EGUs to bear a greater economic burden than EGUs for a given
control strategy'. * * * EPA acknowledges that `the use of a specific
threshold for assessing costs means that a state may not fully consider
available emissions reduction measures above its threshold that would
result in meaningful visibility improvement,' but proposes to approve
North Carolina's reasonable progress analysis anyway. EPA should re-
evaluate this decision in its final action on this proposal, especially
in light of the fact that DAQ determined that no additional reasonable
controls were required at any of the sources affecting visibility in
North Carolina's Class I areas.''
    Response 8: As noted in EPA's Reasonable Progress Guidance,\6\ the
states have wide latitude to determine appropriate additional control
requirements for ensuring reasonable progress, and there are many ways
for a state to approach identification of additional reasonable
measures. States must consider, at a minimum, the four statutory
factors in determining reasonable progress, but states have flexibility
in how to take these factors into consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program,, July 1, 2007, memorandum from William
L.Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (``EPA's Reasonable
Progress Guidance''), page 4-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing DAQ's methodology and analyses and the record
prepared by

DAQ, EPA finds North Carolina's conclusion that no further controls are
necessary at this time acceptable. As discussed in EPA's February 28,
2012, proposal, the State adequately evaluated the control technologies
available at the time of its analysis and applicable to this type of
facility and consistently applied its criteria for reasonable
compliance costs. See 77 FR 11872. The State also included appropriate
documentation in its SIP of the technical analysis it used to assess
the need for and implementation of reasonable progress controls.
Although the use of a specific threshold for assessing costs means that
a state may not fully consider available emissions reduction measures
above its threshold that would result in meaningful visibility
improvement, EPA believes that the North Carolina SIP ensures
reasonable progress.
    In approving North Carolina's reasonable progress analysis, EPA is
placing great weight on the fact that there is no indication in the SIP
revision that North Carolina, as a result of using a specific cost
effectiveness threshold, rejected potential reasonable progress
measures that would have had a meaningful impact on visibility in its
Class I areas.
    Comment 9: The Commenter believes that EPA should require the State
to verify that units 3 and 4 at PCS Phosphate have been shut down.
    Response 9: The construction permit for the new unit 7 required the
shutdown of these two units as a condition of commencing operation. The
new unit is operating, and units 3 and 4 have been shut down.
    Comment 10: The Commenter states that ``[a]ssurances of the State's
`intent' to `have discussions' and to `encourage' pollution reduction
measures'' at Blue Ridge Paper, provided in response to the Federal
Land Managers' (FLMs') request that the State describe a plan to
consult with Blue Ridge Paper on potential control actions prior to
2018 that may warrant a higher cost of control for reasonable progress,
``does not satisfy the requirement to demonstrate reasonable progress
toward the State's visibility goals.''
    Response 10: North Carolina did not rely on additional controls at
this facility to demonstrate that the State would meet its RPGs for
this first implementation period, and DAQ stated in its SIP revision
that additional controls are not required at the facility during the
first implementation period. The State did not rely on the
``discussions'' and ``encouragement'' to contribute any emissions
reductions to meeting the RPG goals for this first implementation
period. It also made clear that conclusions reached regarding
appropriate levels of control to meet reasonable progress for this
first implementation period did not extend to the next implementation
period. In subsequent implementation periods, North Carolina will once
again determine the pollutants and sources with the greatest impact on
visibility and implement appropriate emissions reduction measures as
part of North Carolina's LTS for future implementation periods.
    Comment 11: The Commenter claims that there is no information in
the docket supporting the cost estimates for Blue Ridge Paper Products
used by the State to determine that ``there are no cost-effective
controls available for these units at this time within the cost
threshold established for this reasonable progress assessment. . . .
Without supporting data in the docket, neither we nor EPA can determine
that the proper costing methodology was followed.''
    Response 11: Blue Ridge Paper Products submitted supporting
materials to the State for the BART determination that adequately
document the cost methodology for the control equipment (included in
Appendix L.10 of North Carolina's regional haze SIP submittal). North
Carolina also summarized its evaluation methodology for lower sulfur
coal options for two additional units evaluated for reasonable progress
(Appendix H of the North Carolina's regional haze SIP submittal). Since
this analysis involved the use of alternative coals, it is based on the
cost premium for these coals and no costs for additional control
equipment are projected. EPA has reviewed the supporting materials
provided by DAQ and finds no reason to question the estimates or the
conclusions reached by the State.
    Comment 12: The Commenter recommends that EPA defer action on the
Reasonable Progress analysis for Blue Ridge Paper Products until the
State conducts a ``valid four-factor analysis'' and provides that
analysis for public review. Specifically, the Commenter ``could find no
information in the docket to support any of the `cost of compliance'
estimates presented by EPA'' and without such documentation, the
Commenter is ``unable to provide informed comments on their validity or
on the conclusions upon which they were based.''
    Response 12: See the response to Comment 11. In addition, EPA notes
that the Commenter was provided a draft of the North Carolina's
regional haze SIP for review prior to the State's release of the SIP
revision for public comment, and that the SIP revision went through
public notice and comment rulemaking before the State submitted it to
EPA. The Commenter raised no concerns with the adequacy of the
documentation prior to EPA's proposed limited approval action.

III. What is the effect of this final action?

    Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6), and EPA's long-standing
guidance, a limited approval results in approval of the entire SIP
revision, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from
granting a full approval of the SIP revision.\7\ Today, EPA is
finalizing a limited approval of North Carolina's December 17, 2007,
regional haze SIP revision. This limited approval results in approval
of North Carolina's entire regional haze submission and all its
elements. EPA is taking this approach because North Carolina's SIP will
be stronger and more protective of the environment with the
implementation of those measures by the State and having federal
approval and enforceability than it would without those measures being
included in its SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 1992 Calcagni Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing a limited approval of a revision to the North
Carolina SIP submitted by the State of North Carolina on December 17,
2007, as meeting some of the applicable regional haze requirements as
set forth in sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.300-
308.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for answers to ``* * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *''. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act
does not apply to this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the federal SIP approval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship under
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union
Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Under sections 202 of the UMRA of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''),
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to state, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that today's action does not include a federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This federal action approves pre-existing requirements
under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly,
no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has Federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under
Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 requires federal agencies to
evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation.
To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus
standards'' (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs
and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law
or otherwise impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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).

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 27, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule 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, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 13, 2012.
 A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770(c) is amended:
0
a. By adding a new entry to Table 1 in paragraph (c) for ``Sect .0543''
in numerical order, and
0
b. By adding a new entry to the table in paragraph (e) for ``Regional
Haze Plan'' at the end of the table.

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                Table 1--EPA-Approved North Carolina Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   State        EPA approval
        State citation                 Title/subject          effective date        date           Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Section .0500 Emission Control Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sect .0543...................  Best Available Retrofit              9/6/2006  6/27/2012
                                Technology.                                    [Insert
                                                                               citation of
                                                                               publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       State       EPA approval
            Provision             effective date       date                  Federal Register citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Plan..............      11/17/2007       6/27/2012  [Insert citation of publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-15468 Filed 6-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27157-27159]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-105-000]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Western Kentucky Lateral
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Western Kentucky Lateral
Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Texas Gas
Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. The
Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before June 4, 2015.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on March 4, 2015, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP15-105-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to

construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Texas Gas provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP15-105-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Texas Gas proposes to construct and operate 22.5 miles of 24-inch-
diameter pipeline to connect the existing Texas Gas Midland 3
Compressor Station to Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) existing
Paradise Fossil Plant in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. The Western
Lateral Project would provide about 230,000 million standard cubic feet
of natural gas per day to TVA's proposed combined cycle gas plant at
its Paradise Fossil Plant. TVA's combined cycle gas plant includes the
replacement of two coal fired units to assist TVA's compliance with the
Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
    The Western Kentucky Lateral Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     22.5-miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline;
     two new meter and regulator stations; and
     one new mainline valve.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 356
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, Texas Gas would maintain about 148 acres for
permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and revert to former uses. About 35 percent of the
proposed pipeline route parallels existing pipeline, utility, or road
rights-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\ We will define the

project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with
the SHPO as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the
APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance
(examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage
yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project
will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-
105). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. 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.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: May 5, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11415 Filed 5-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 525]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33214]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-441, OMB Control No. 3235-0497]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 15c3-4.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of the
previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
15c3-4 (17 CFR 240.15c3-4) (the ``Rule'') under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 15c3-4 requires certain broker-dealers that are registered
with the Commission as OTC derivatives dealers, or who compute their
net capital charges under Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1 (17 CFR 240.15c3-1)
(``ANC firms''), to establish, document, and maintain a system of
internal risk management controls. The Rule sets forth the basic
elements for an OTC derivatives dealer or an ANC firm to consider and
include when establishing, documenting, and reviewing its internal risk
management control system, which are designed to, among other things,
ensure the integrity of an OTC derivatives dealer's or an ANC firm's
risk measurement, monitoring, and management process, to clarify
accountability at the appropriate organizational level, and to define
the permitted scope of the dealer's activities and level of risk. The
Rule also requires that management of an OTC derivatives dealer or an
ANC firm must periodically review, in accordance with written
procedures, the firm's business activities for consistency with its
risk management guidelines.
    The staff estimates that the average amount of time a new OTC
derivatives dealer will spend establishing and documenting its risk
management control system is 2,000 hours and that, on average, a
registered OTC derivatives dealer will spend approximately 200 hours
each year to maintain (e.g., reviewing and updating) its risk
management control system.\1\ Currently, four firms are registered with
the Commission as OTC derivatives dealers. The staff estimates that
approximately two additional entities may become registered as OTC
derivatives dealers within the next three years. Thus, the estimated
annualized burden would be 800 hours for the four OTC derivatives
dealers currently registered with the Commission to maintain their risk
management control systems,\2\ 1,334 hours for the two new OTC
derivatives dealers to establish and document their risk management
control systems,\3\ and 400 hours for the two new OTC derivatives
dealers to maintain their risk management control systems.\4\
Accordingly, the staff estimates the total annualized burden associated
with Rule 15c3-4 for the six OTC derivatives dealers will be
approximately 2,534 hours annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This notice does not cover the hour burden associated with
ANC firms, because the hour burden for ANC firms is included in the
Paperwork Reduction Act collection for Rule 15c3-1, which requires
ANC firms to comply with specific provisions of Rule 15c3-4 in
Appendix E to Rule 15c3-1. See 17 CFR 240.15c3-1(a)(7)(iii), 17 CFR
240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(ii), and 17 CFR 240.15c3-1e(a)(1)(viii)(C).
    \2\ (200 hours x 4 firms) = 800.
    \3\ ((2,000 hours/3 years) x 2 firms) = 1,334.
    \4\ (200 hours x 2 firms) = 400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff believes that the internal cost of complying with Rule
15c3-4 will be approximately $283 per hour.\5\ This per hour cost is
based upon an annual average hourly salary for a compliance manager who
would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the requirements of
Rule 15c3-4. Accordingly, the total annualized internal cost of
compliance for all affected OTC derivatives dealers is estimated to be
$717,122.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The $283 per hour salary figure for a compliance manager is
from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the Securities
Industry 2013, modified by Commission staff to account for an 1800-
hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm
size, employee benefits and overhead.
    \6\ 2,534 hours x $283 per hour = $717,122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The records required to be made by OTC derivatives dealers pursuant
to the Rule and the results of the periodic reviews conducted under
paragraph (d) of Rule 15c3-4 must be preserved under Rule 17a-4 of the
Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.17a-4) for a period of not less than three
years, the first two years in an easily accessible place. The
Commission will not generally publish or make available to any person
notice or reports received pursuant to the Rule. The statutory basis
for the Commission's refusal to disclose such information to the public
is the exemption contained in section (b)(4) of the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), which essentially provides that the
requirement of public dissemination does not apply to commercial or
financial information which is privileged or confidential.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: (i)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or by sending an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: December 30, 2015.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33214 Filed 1-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30128]
[DOCID:fr25my06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-383-000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Northeast Gateway
Project and Notice of Public Comment Meetings

May 19, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) has cooperated in the preparation of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) on the liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities
proposed by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC in the above-referenced
docket. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) and the U. S. Coast Guard,
as the lead Federal agencies, have issued a Notice in the Federal
Register indicating the availability of the DEIS and requesting
comments by July 3, 2006.
    The U.S. Coast Guard will also hold public hearings in Gloucester,
MA on June 14, 2006 and in Salem, MA on June 15, 2006. Both hearings
will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. (EST) and will be preceded by an
informational open house from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. The public meeting in
Gloucester will be held at the Gloucester High School Auditorium, 32
Leslie O. Johnson Road, Gloucester, MA, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
public meeting in Salem will be at the Salem State College Library,
Charlotte Forten Hall, 360 Lafayette Street, Salem, MA, telephone: 978-
542-7192.
    The U.S. Coast Guard has mailed copies of the DEIS to Federal,
state, and local government agencies; elected officials; Native
American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors in the
FERC's proceeding; individuals who provided scoping comments; and
affected landowners and individuals. A copy of this DEIS, the
application, and associated documentation are currently available for
viewing at the DOT's Docket Management System Web site: http://dms.dot.gov
 under docket number 22219.

    During preparation of the DEIS, the following FERC staff
recommendations were inadvertently left out of section 4.12 of the
DEIS:
    1. Algonquin should not begin construction activities until:
    a. FERC staff receives comments from the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) regarding the proposed action;
    b. the staff completes formal consultation with the NMFS, if
required; and
    c. Algonquin has received written notification from the Director of
the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) that construction or use of
mitigation may begin.
    2. Prior to construction, Northeast Gateway (NEG) should provide to
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) staff for review and approval a full air
quality analysis identifying all mitigation requirements required to
demonstrate conformity and submit detailed information documenting how
the project would demonstrate conformance with the applicable SIP in
accordance with Title 40 CFR 51.858. The documentation should address
each regulatory criteria listed in part 51.858; provide a detailed
explanation as to whether or not the project would meet each
requirement; and for each criteria being satisfied, provide all
supporting information on how the project would comply. Should any
element of the project change substantially, NEG should resubmit the
aforementioned information so that USCG staff may determine the
Conformity of the revised action. In addition, FERC staff recommends
that:
    Prior to construction, Algonquin file documentation with the
Secretary of the Commission that confirms USCG staff's review and
approval of the project's air quality analysis and identifies all
mitigation requirements required to demonstrate conformity with Title
40 CFR 51.858.
    3. Algonquin should not begin construction of the project until it
files with the Secretary of the Commission a copy of the determination
of consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Plan issued by the
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management.
    4. Algonquin should prepare as-built construction plans for the
Pipeline Lateral that include the details of where the pipeline would
be laid on the ocean floor and protected with concrete mats. To
minimize the potential for the pipeline to become an obstacle for
ground fishing gear, these plans should be made available to the USCG
and other jurisdictional agencies for dissemination to the commercial
fishing industry.
    5. Algonquin should file with the Secretary of the Commission,
prior to construction, a detailed program to monitor the burial and
backfilling of the Pipeline Lateral. Include documentation of all
consultation with jurisdictional resource management agencies to
determine the appropriate depth and cover criteria as well as any
measures to minimize impacts to migrating lobsters from pipeline
trenching and backfilling activities.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8032 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 85624]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28535]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4285-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

North Carolina; Amendment No. 13 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4285-DR), dated October 10, 2016,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective November 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of North Carolina is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of October 10, 2016.

    Franklin County for Public Assistance, including direct federal
assistance.
    Anson, Bladen, Chatham, Cumberland, Halifax, Hoke, Johnston,
Lee, Nash, Richmond, Scotland, and Wake Counties for Public
assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for Individual
Assistance and assistance for debris removal and emergency
protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal
assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-28535 Filed 11-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19490-19492]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07797]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 9

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0486; FRL-9943-62]

OMB Approvals Under the Paperwork Reduction Act; Technical
Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
technical amendment updates the table that lists the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) control numbers issued under PRA for
information collection requirements contained in EPA's regulations that
are promulgated in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
This technical amendment adds new approvals published in the Federal
Register since January 8, 2016, and removes expired and terminated
approvals.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0486, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Hofmann, Regulatory
Coordination Staff (7101M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons who are concerned about OMB
approval for information collections required by EPA regulations. Since
other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

II. Background

A. Why is this technical amendment being issued?

    This document updates the OMB control numbers listed in 40 CFR part
9 for various regulations promulgated under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601), the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136), and the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) (21 U.S.C. 408). Under PRA (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a
person is not required to respond to an information collection request
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB
control numbers for EPA's regulations are codified in title 40 of the
CFR, after appearing in the preamble of the final rule. These numbers
are listed in 40 CFR part 9, displayed in a subsequent publication in
the Federal Register, or displayed by other appropriate means, such as
on a related collection instrument or form, or as part of the
instructions to respondents. The display of OMB control numbers in
certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9. In addition
to displaying the applicable OMB control number in the final rule and
on the applicable collection instruments, the Office of Chemical Safety
and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) has also typically listed the OMB
control number in the table at 40 CFR 9.1 for regulations it has issued
under TSCA, FIFRA, and FFDCA. With this technical amendment, OCSPP is
updating the table in 40 CFR 9.1 to list the new OMB control number
that replaces the two OMB control numbers that have been consolidated
under the new OMB control number.

B. Why is this technical amendment issued as a final rule?

    The information collection activities referenced in this document
were previously subject to public notice and comment as part of the
rulemaking process, and this action does not in any way affect the
referenced information collection activities or rulemakings. This
action only amends the table at 40 CFR 9.1 to update the list of OMB
control numbers listed there. Due to the technical nature of the table,
EPA finds that further notice and comment about amending the table is
unnecessary. As a result, EPA finds that there is ``good cause'' under
section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)), to amend this table without further notice and
comment.

C. What specific changes are being made?

    On January 8, 2016, OMB approved the consolidation of three
existing, approved OMB control numbers into a single, new OMB control
number. Specifically, OMB control numbers 2070-0155, 2070-0158, and
2070-0181 were consolidated into a single information collection
approved under OMB control number 2070-0195. This consolidated OMB
control number covers the information collection activities imposed on
entities conducting lead-based paint related activities. The previous
OMB control numbers for these information collection activities will be
discontinued.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action implements technical amendments to 40 CFR part 9 to
reflect changes to OMB approvals under PRA. It does not otherwise
impose or amend any requirements. As such, this action does not require
review by OMB under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or Executive Order 13045,
entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). Nor does it impose any
enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or impose any
significant or unique impact on small governments as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action will not have substantial direct effects on State or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and States or Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and States or Indian
tribes. As such, it will not have any ``federalism implications'' as
described by Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) or ``tribal implications'' as described by
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Nor does
it involve any technical standards that would require Agency
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15
U.S.C. 272 note), environmental justice-related issues that would
require consideration under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), or otherwise
involve anything that would have any adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy that would require consideration under
Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001).
    In addition, since this action is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements under the APA or any other statute, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

IV. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., EPA
will submit a report containing this rule 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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 29, 2016.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 9--OMB APPROVALS UNDER THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671, 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345(d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq.,

6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657, 11023, 11048.

0
2. In Sec.  [emsp14]9.1, the table is amended by revising the
undesignated center heading ``Lead-Based Paint Poisioning Prevention in
Certain Residential Structures'' to read ``Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention in Certain Residential Structures'' and revising the
following entries underneath it:
0
a. Part 745, subpart E;
0
b. Part 745, subpart L; and
0
c. Part 745, subpart Q.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  9.1  OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              40 CFR citation                      OMB control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain Residential Structures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 745, subpart E.......................  2070-0195

                                * * * * *
Part 745, subpart L.......................  2070-0195
Part 745, subpart Q.......................  2070-0195

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-07797 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 8865]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3588]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9632-6]

Public Water System Supervision Program Approval for the State of
Illinois; Tentative Approval

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Illinois submitted a
primacy application for its approved Public Water System Supervision
Program. Illinois is applying its Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Regulations to all Illinois water systems that use surface
water and ground water under the influence of surface water as a
source, thereby satisfying the requirements of the Long-Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule. Illinois is also applying its Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products Regulations to all Illinois
community and noncommunity water systems that add and/or deliver water
that is treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than
ultraviolet light, thereby satisfying the requirements of the Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule.
    EPA has determined that the state regulations and procedures
submitted by the State to EPA for review are no less stringent than the
corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to award
primacy to Illinois for Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
and Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-product Rules
implementation. Any interested party may request a public hearing. A
request for a public hearing must be submitted by March 16, 2012, to
the Regional Administrator at the EPA Region 5 address shown below. The
Regional Administrator may deny frivolous or insubstantial requests for
a hearing. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is
made by March 16, 2012; EPA Region 5 will hold a public hearing. If EPA
Region 5 does not receive a timely and appropriate request for a
hearing and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing
on her own motion, this determination shall become final and effective
on March 16, 2012. Any request for a public hearing shall include the
following information: The name, address, and telephone number of the
individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief
statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional
Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information
that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the
signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is
made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a
responsible official of the organization or other entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection at the following offices: Illinois Pollution Control
Board at the James R. Thompson Center, 100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500,
Chicago, Illinois 60601, and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Ground Water and Drinking Water Branch (WG-15J), 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Kuefler, EPA Region 5, Ground
Water and Drinking Water Branch, at the address given above, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Authority:  Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 300g-2 (1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.

    Dated: January 23, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-3588 Filed 2-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P