[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2851-2860]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00870]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0689; FRL-9921-88-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve in part and disapprove in part the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision, submitted by the State of Alabama, through the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), for inclusion into the
Alabama SIP. This proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act) infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. ADEM certified that the
Alabama SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Alabama. With the exception
of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) permitting, interstate transport, and visibility protection
requirements for which EPA is proposing no action through this notice,
and with the exception of the provisions respecting state boards, for
which EPA is proposing disapproval, EPA is proposing to approve
Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission provided to EPA on August 20,
2012, as satisfying the required infrastructure elements for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 20,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0689, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0689,'' 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.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, 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. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0689. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of

encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background and Overview
II. What elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Alabama addressed the elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Overview

    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based
on 8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 77 FR 16436. Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such
shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states
to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring,
basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to
submit such SIPs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than
March 2011.\1\ ADEM made this submission and certified that the Alabama
SIP contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
implemented, enforced, and maintained in Alabama (hereafter referred to
as an ``infrastructure SIP submission'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions states generally
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes,
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections
110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise
indicated, the term ``ADEM Admin. Code r.'' indicates that the cited
regulation has been approved into Alabama's federally-approved SIP.
The term ``Ala. Code'' refers to Alabama state statutes, which,
unless otherwise indicated, are not a part of the federally-approved
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's action is proposing to approve Alabama's infrastructure SIP
submission for the applicable requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD permitting requirements for major
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through
4), the state board requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and the
visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J). With respect to Alabama's
infrastructure SIP submission related to the provisions pertaining to
the PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section
110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), and the visibility requirements of
110(a)(2)(J), EPA is not proposing any action today regarding these
requirements. EPA will act on these portions of Alabama's submission in
a separate action. With respect to Alabama's infrastructure SIP
submission related to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements respecting
the section 128 state board requirements, EPA is proposing to
disapprove this element of Alabama's submission in today's rulemaking.
Finally, EPA notes that this action is not approving any specific rule,
but rather proposing that Alabama's already approved SIP meets certain
CAA requirements.

II. What elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
requirements of section 110(a)(2) are summarized below and in EPA's
September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).

 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System

 110(a)2(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and
for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources
 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport
 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and
International Air Pollution
 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of
Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies
 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting
 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions
 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public
Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection
 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling
Data
 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local
Entities

III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Alabama that address the
infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP
submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``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 these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. 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 program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\4\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) 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 SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\5\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\6\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \6\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either
individually or in a larger combined action.\7\ Similarly, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts
of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a

given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For
example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various
elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \8\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, 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. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants
because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP
submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely
new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\10\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\11\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\12\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \11\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \12\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are
necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including
GHGs. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include
provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40

CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as
the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications
with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the
latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers
irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, among other things, the requirement that states
have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates
whether the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program
and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that
NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission,
however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each
and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e.,
already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of
the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\13\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations 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. These provisions, 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 evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
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 state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\14\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\15\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies 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 an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \15\ EPA has used 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 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \16\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of 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 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Alabama addressed the elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission addresses the provisions of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A) Emission limits and other control measures: Several

regulations within Alabama's SIP are relevant to air quality control
regulations. The regulations described below have been federally
approved in the Alabama SIP and include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures. ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-
1-.03--Ambient Air Quality Standards, authorizes ADEM to adopt rules
for the control of air pollution in order to comply with NAAQS,
including those necessary to obtain EPA approval under section 110 of
the CAA. This regulation along with ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-1-.06--
Compliance Schedule, set the schedule for compliance with the State's
Air Pollution Control rules and regulations to be consistent with the
requirements of the CAA. ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-1-.05--Sampling and
Testing Methods, details the authority and means with which ADEM can
require testing and emissions verification. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that the provisions contained in these
regulations and Alabama's practices are adequate to protect the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the
Agency plans to address such state regulations in a separate
action.\17\ In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a
deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it as soon as
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On February 22, 2013, EPA published a proposed action in
the Federal Register entitled, ``State Implementation Plans:
Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess
Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction;
Proposed Rule.'' See 78 FR 12460.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: ADEM
Admin. Code r. 335-3-1-.04--Monitoring, Records, and Reporting,
requires sources to submit emissions monitoring reports as prescribed
by the Director of ADEM. Pursuant to this regulation, these sources
collect air monitoring data, quality assure the results, and report the
data to EPA. ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-1-.05--Sampling and Testing
Methods, details the authority and means with which ADEM can require
testing and emissions verification. ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-14-.04--
Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air: Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD), describes the State's use
of ambient air quality monitoring data for purposes of permitting new
facilities and assessing major modifications to existing facilities.
Annually, States develop and submit to EPA for approval statewide
ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the requirements of 40
CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan involves an
evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring network, includes
the annual ambient monitoring network design plan and a certified
evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary support
equipment.\18\ On June 4, 2013, Alabama submitted its plan to EPA. On
November 22, 2013, EPA approved Alabama's monitoring network plan.
Alabama's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0689. EPA has
made the preliminary determination that Alabama's SIP and practices are
adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data systems
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are
evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance
with 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources: This element consists of
three sub-elements; enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and
modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources; and
preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications in
areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as
required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program).
ADEM's 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIP submission cited a
number of SIP provisions to address these requirements. Specifically,
the submission cited ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-14-.04--Air Permits
Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas: Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Permitting (PSD) and ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-14-.05--
Air Permits Authorizing Construction in or Near Nonattainment Areas.
Collectively, these provisions of Alabama's SIP regulate the
construction of any new major stationary source or any modification at
an existing major stationary source in an area designated as
nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable. As discussed further
below, in this action EPA is only proposing to approve the enforcement,
and the regulation of minor sources and minor modifications aspects of
Alabama's section 110(a)(2)(C) infrastructure SIP submission.
    Enforcement: ADEM's above-described, SIP-approved regulations
provide for enforcement of ozone precursor (VOC and NOX)
emission limits and control measures and construction permitting for
new or modified stationary sources.
    Preconstruction PSD Permitting for Major Sources: With respect to
Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction
PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C),
EPA is not proposing any action today regarding these requirements and
instead will act on this portion of the submission in a separate
action.
    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C)
also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor
source program that regulates emissions of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
ADEM Admin. Code r. 334-3-14-.03--Standards for Granting Permits,
governs the preconstruction permitting of modifications and
construction of minor stationary sources.
    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Alabama's SIP and
practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures and
regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate Pollution Transport:
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components have two subparts
resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as
``prongs,'' that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions.
The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions
activity in one state from

contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (``prong 1''), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (``prong 2''). The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state
(``prong 3''), or to protect visibility in another state (``prong 4'').
With respect to Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission related to the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prongs 1 through 4), EPA is not proposing any
action today regarding these requirements and instead will act on these
portions of the submission in a separate action.
    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport
provisions: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include
provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act,
relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. ADEM
Admin. Code r. 335-3-14-.04--Prevention of Significant Deterioration in
Permitting describes how Alabama notifies neighboring states of
potential emission impacts from new or modified sources applying for
PSD permits. This regulation requires ADEM to provide an opportunity
for a public hearing to the public, which includes State or local air
pollution control agencies, ``whose lands may be affected by emissions
from the source or modification'' in Alabama. Additionally, Alabama
does not have any pending obligation under sections 115 and 126 of the
CAA. Accordingly, EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Alabama's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with
the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires
that each implementation plan provide (i) necessary assurances that the
State will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state
law to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) that the State comply
with the requirements respecting State Boards pursuant to section 128
of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the State has
relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality
for the implementation of any plan provision, the State has
responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan
provisions. EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's infrastructure SIP
submission as meeting the requirements of sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
and (iii). With respect to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (regarding
state boards), EPA is proposing to disapprove this sub-element. EPA's
rationale respecting each sub-element is described in turn below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), ADEM's infrastructure submission demonstrate
that it is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the
NAAQS, emissions standards general policies, a system of permits, fee
schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs. As
evidence of the adequacy of ADEM's resources with respect to sub-
elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to ADEM on April 24,
2014, outlining 105 grant commitments and current status of these
commitments for fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA submitted to Alabama
can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0689. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on
current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in
relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2013, therefore, Alabama's grants
were finalized and closed out. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Alabama has adequate resources for implementation of
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, the requirements of
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when EPA performs a completeness
determination for each SIP submittal. This determination ensures that
each submittal provides evidence that adequate personnel, funding, and
legal authority under state law has been used to carry out the state's
implementation plan and related issues. Alabama's authority is included
in all prehearings and final SIP submittal packages for approval by
EPA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Alabama has
adequate resources for implementation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with
section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 requires that the SIP provide: (1)
The majority of members of the state board or body which approves
permits or enforcement orders represent the public interest and do not
derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to
permitting or enforcement orders under the CAA; and (2) any potential
conflicts of interest by such board or body, or the head of an
executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed. After
reviewing Alabama's SIP, EPA has made the preliminary determination
that the State's implementation plan does not contain provisions to
comply with section 128 of the Act, and thus Alabama's August 20, 2012,
infrastructure SIP submission does not meet the requirements of the
Act. While Alabama has state statutes that may address, in whole or in
part, requirements related to state boards at the state level, these
provisions are not included in the SIP as required by the CAA. Based on
an evaluation of the federally-approved Alabama SIP, EPA is proposing
to disapprove Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The submitted provisions which purport to address
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) are severable from the other portions of ADEM's
infrastructure SIP submission, therefore, EPA is proposing to
disapprove those provisions which relate only to sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: ADEM's
infrastructure SIP submission describes the establishment of
requirements for compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis,
and for emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of
data in the State. The Alabama infrastructure SIP submission also
describes how the major source and minor source emission inventory
programs collect emission data throughout the State and ensure the
quality of such data. Alabama meets these requirements through ADEM
Admin. Code r. 335-3-1-.04--Monitoring, Records, and Reporting, and
335-3-12--Continuous Monitoring Requirements for Existing Sources. ADEM
Admin. Code r. 335-3-1-.04, details how sources are required as
appropriate to establish and maintain records; make reports; install,
use, and maintain such monitoring equipment or methods and provide
periodic emission reports as the regulation requires. These reports and
records are required to be compiled, and submitted on forms furnished
by the State. Additionally, ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-12-.02 requires
owners and operators of emissions sources to ``install, calibrate,
operate and maintain all monitoring equipment necessary for
continuously monitoring the pollutants.'' \19\ ADEM

Admin. Code r. 335-3-1-.13--Credible Evidence, makes allowances for
owners and/or operators to utilize ``any credible evidence or
information relevant'' to demonstrate compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed, for the purpose of submitting compliance certification and
can be used to establish whether or not an owner or operator has
violated or is in violation of any rule or standard. Accordingly, EPA
is unaware of any provision preventing the use of credible evidence in
the Alabama SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-12-.02 establishes that data
reporting requirements for sources required to conduct continuous
monitoring in the state should comply with data reporting
requirements set forth at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix P. Section 40 CFR
part 51, Appendix P includes that the averaging period used for data
reporting should be established by the state to correspond to the
averaging period specified in the emission test method used to
determine compliance with an emission standard for the pollutant/
source category in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Alabama is required to submit emissions data to EPA
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory
System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants
and the precursors that form them--nitrogen oxides, SO2,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and VOC. Many
states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
Alabama made its latest update to the 2011 NEI on May 7, 2013. EPA
compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Alabama's SIP and practices are adequate for the
stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency Powers: This section requires that states
demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and
adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. ADEM Admin.
Code r. 335-3-2--Air Pollution Emergency, provides for the
identification of air pollution emergency episodes, episode criteria,
and emissions reduction plans. Alabama's compliance with section 303 of
the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority is
also met by Ala. Code section 22-28-21 Air Pollution Emergencies. Ala.
Code Section 22-28-21 provides ADEM the authority to order the ``person
or persons responsible for the operation or operations of one or more
air contaminants sources'' causing ``imminent danger to human health or
safety in question to reduce or discontinue emissions immediately.''
The order triggers a hearing no later than 24-hours after issuance
before the Environmental Management Commission which can affirm, modify
or set aside the Director's order. Additionally, the Governor can, by
proclamation, declare, as to all or any part of said area, that an air
pollution emergency exists and exercise certain powers in whole or in
part, by the issuance of an order or orders to protect the public
health. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Alabama's SIP,
state laws and practices are adequate to satisfy the infrastructure SIP
obligations for emergency powers related to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(G).
    9. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: As previously discussed, ADEM
is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as
needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Alabama has the ability and
authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a
number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS.
ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-1-1-.03--Organization and Duties of the
Commission,\20\ provides ADEM with the authority to establish, adopt,
promulgate, modify, repeal and suspend rules, regulations, or
environmental standards which may be applicable to Alabama or ``any of
its geographic parts.'' Admin. Code r. 335-1-1-.03--Ambient Air Quality
Standards, provides ADEM the authority to amend, revise, and
incorporate the NAAQS into its SIP. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Alabama adequately demonstrates a commitment to
provide future SIP revisions related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ This regulation has not been incorporated into the
federally-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. 110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the general
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP
that complies with the applicable consultation requirements of section
121 and the public notification requirements of section 127. With
respect to Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission related to the
preconstruction PSD permitting and visibility protection requirements,
EPA is not proposing any action today regarding these requirements and
instead will act on these portions of the submission in a separate
action. EPA's rationale for applicable consultation requirements of
section 121 and the public notification requirements of section 127 is
described below.
    110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-3-1-.03--Ambient Air Quality
Standards, as well as its Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which
allows for continued consultation with appropriate state, local, and
tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding
Federal Land Managers), provide for consultation with government
officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development
activities. Specifically, Alabama adopted state-wide consultation
procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity which
includes the development of mobile inventories for SIP development.
These consultation procedures were developed in coordination with the
transportation partners in the State and are consistent with the
approaches used for development of mobile inventories for SIPs.
Required partners covered by Alabama's consultation procedures include
federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency
officials. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Alabama's
SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government
officials related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: ADEM
Admin. Code r. 335-3-14-.01(7)--Public Participation, and 335-3-
14-.05(13)--Public Participation, and Ala. Code section 22-28-21--Air
Pollution Emergencies, provides for public notification when air
pollution episodes occur. Furthermore, ADEM has several public notice
mechanisms in place to notify the public of ozone and other pollutant
forecasting. Alabama maintains a public Web site on which daily air
quality index forecasts are posted for the Birmingham, Huntsville,

and Mobile areas. This Web site can be accessed at: http://adem.alabama.gov/programs/air/airquality.cnt. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public notification.
    11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: ADEM Admin. Code r
335-3-14-.04--Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting, of
the Alabama SIP specifies that required air modeling be conducted in
accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality
Models.'' This regulation provides Alabama with the authority to
conduct air quality modeling and report the results of such modeling to
EPA. These regulations also demonstrate that Alabama has the authority
to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on
ambient air quality of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally,
Alabama supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of
emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS,
including the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, for the southeastern states.
ADEM Admin. Code r 335-3-1-.04--Monitoring, Records, and Reporting
details how sources are required as appropriate to establish and
maintain records; make reports; install, use, and maintain such
monitoring equipment or methods and provide periodic emission reports
as the regulation requires. These reports and records are required to
be compiled, and submitted on forms furnished by the State. Taken as a
whole, Alabama's air quality regulations and practices demonstrate that
ADEM has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of
predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any emissions of any
pollutant for which a NAAQS had been promulgated, and to provide such
information to the EPA Administrator upon request. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Alabama's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality modeling,
along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K).
    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: This section requires the owner
or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting
authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, a fee
sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting
upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or
operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of
implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit
(not including any court costs or other costs associated with any
enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with
respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee
program under title V.
    ADEM Admin. Code r. 335-1-6--Application Fees \21\ requires ADEM to
charge permit-specific fees to the applicant/source as authorized by
State legislation and Ala. Code section 22-22A-5. ADEM thus assures its
permitting fee structure is sufficient for the reasonable cost of
reviewing and acting upon PSD and NNSR permits. Additionally, Alabama
has a fully-approved title V operating permit program--ADEM Admin. Code
r. 335-1-7--``Air Division Operating Permit Fees'' \22\--that covers
the cost of implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits
after they have been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination
that Alabama's state rules and practices adequately provide for
permitting fees related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, when necessary.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This regulation has not been incorporated into the
federally-approved SIP.
    \22\ Title V program regulations are federally approved but not
incorporated into the federally-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: ADEM coordinates with local governments affected by the SIP.
Alabama's SIP also includes a description of the public participation
process for SIP development. Alabama has consulted with local entities
for the development of transportation conformity and has worked with
the Federal Land Managers as a requirement of its regional haze rule.
More specifically, Alabama adopted State-wide consultation procedures
for the implementation of transportation conformity which includes the
development of mobile inventories for SIP development and the
requirements that link transportation planning and air quality planning
in nonattainment and maintenance areas. These consultation and
participation procedures have been approved in the Alabama SIP as the
non-regulatory provisions: ``Alabama Interagency Transportation
Conformity Memorandum of Agreement'' and ``Conformity SIP for
Birmingham and Jackson County.'' These provisions were approved on May
11, 2000, and March 26, 2009, respectively. See 65 FR 30362 and 74 FR
13118. Required partners covered by Alabama's consultation procedures
include federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency
officials. The state and local transportation agency officials are most
directly impacted by transportation conformity requirements and are
required to provide public involvement for their activities including
the analysis demonstrating how they meet transportation conformity
requirements. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Alabama's
SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with affected
local entities related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, with the exception of the PSD permitting
requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
(II) (prongs 1 through 4), the state board requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and the visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), EPA
is proposing to approve Alabama's August 20, 2012, SIP submission for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the above described infrastructure SIP
requirements. EPA is proposing to disapprove section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
of Alabama's infrastructure submission because the State's
implementation plan does not contain provisions to comply with section
128 of the Act, and thus Alabama's August 20, 2012, infrastructure SIP
submission does not meet the requirements of the Act. This proposed
approval in part and disapproval in part, however, does not include the
PSD permitting requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C)
and (J), the interstate transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) and will be addressed by EPA in a
separate action.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a CAA Part D Plan or is required in
response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA
section 110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. The portion of
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being proposed for
disapproval in today's notice) were not submitted to meet requirements
for Part D or a SIP call, and therefore, if EPA takes final action

to disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However,
if this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger
the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a FIP no later
than 2 years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects
the deficiency, and EPA approves the plan or plan revision before EPA
promulgates such FIP.

VI. 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. See 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
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 6, 2015.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-00870 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1502]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-45-003]

Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

January 5, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 29, 2006, Northwest Pipeline
Corporation tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective
January 15, 2007:

Substitute Thirty-Second Revised Sheet No. 5,
Substitute Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5-C,
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 5-D.

    Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect the
same rates in its Docket No. CP06-45 filing as those filed in
Northwest's motion rates that were filed on December 22, 2006 in Docket
No. RP06-416-001.
    Northwest Pipeline Corporation states that copies of the filing
were served on parties on the official service list in the above-
captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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 email
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>.
    Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 23, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-281 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56821-56824]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25831]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0009; FRL-9966-69]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions or denials were
granted during the period April 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017 to control
unforeseen pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed at the end of
the emergency exemption or denial.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0009, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    EPA has granted or denied emergency exemptions to the following
State and Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the
following form: Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific. EPA has
also listed denied emergency exemption requests in this notice.
    Under FIFRA section 18 (7 U.S.C. 136p), EPA can authorize the use
of a pesticide when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations
(commonly called emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal
agencies and are of four types:
    1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most
emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
    2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are emergency
exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are
rarely requested.
    3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency
(and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request
and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency
cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ``a
reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure
of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-
limited tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm
standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency
granted the exemption or denial, the type of exemption, the pesticide
authorized and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, number
of acres (if applicable), and the duration of the exemption. EPA also
gives the Federal Register citation for the time-limited tolerance, if
any.

III. Emergency Exemptions and Denials

A. U.S. States and Territories

Alabama
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a
maximum of 500 acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 12,
2017 to November 15, 2017.
Arizona
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 26,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b). Effective May 1, 2017
to November 30, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 150,000 acres
of cotton to control tarnished plant bug (Lygus spp.). A permanent
tolerance in connection with an earlier registration action has been
established in 40 CFR 180.668(a). Effective June 1, 2017 to October 31,
2017.
Arkansas
State Plant Board
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 420,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bug
(Lygus lineolaris). A permanent tolerance in connection with an earlier
registration action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a).
Effective June 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 200 acres
of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-
limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established
in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 12, 2017 to November 15, 2017.

California
Department of Pesticide Regulation
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of methoxyfenozide on a
maximum of 100,000 acres of rice to control armyworm (Mythimna
unipuncta) and Western Yellow striped Armyworm (Spodoptera praefica). A
time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been
established in 40 CFR 180.544(b). Effective June 30, 2017 to October 4,
2017.
Colorado
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 500,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b). Effective April 9,
2017 to November 30, 2017.
Delaware
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a
maximum of 415 acres of apples, pears, and nectarines, to control the
brown marmorated stink bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with
this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective April
20, 2017 to October 15, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 415 acres of
pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stink bug. A time-
limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established
in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective May 22, 2017 to October 15, 2017.
Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on a
maximum of 7,500 acres of avocado trees to control Laurel wilt
(Raffaelea lauricola). A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.434(b). Effective April 3,
2017 to April 3, 2020.
    Public health exemptions: EPA authorized use of pyriproxyfen (a
larvicide) and Beauveria bassiana (a fungus pathogenic to adult
insects) to help control Aedes species of mosquitoes, vectors of the
zika virus, in Florida. Effective June 15, 2017 to June 15, 2018.
Georgia
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 50,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b). May 1, 2017 to
November 30, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 200 acres
of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-
limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established
in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 12, 2017 to November 15, 2017.
Hawaii
Department of Agriculture
    Crisis exemption: On May 31, 2017 the Hawaii Department of
Agriculture declared a crisis exemption for the use of tolfenpyrad on
watermelon to control watermelon thrips. The use season is expected to
last until October 31, 2017, and a specific exemption request was also
submitted.
Kansas
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 2,850,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b). Effective April 9,
2017 to November 30, 2017.
Kentucky
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a
maximum of 1,500 acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 12,
2017 to November 15, 2017.
Maryland
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a
maximum of 3,570 acres of apples, pears, and nectarines, to control the
brown marmorated stink bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with
this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective April
20, 2017 to October 15, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 3,730 acres
of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stink bug. A
time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been
established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective May 22, 2017 to October 15,
2017.
Michigan
Department of Agriculture
    Crisis exemption: On June 29, 2017 the Michigan Department of
Agriculture declared a crisis exemption for the use of zeta-
cypermethrin on tart cherries to control Spotted Wing Drosophila. The
use season is expected to last until August 15, 2017, and a specific
exemption request was also submitted.
Mississippi
Department of Agriculture and Commerce
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 750,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bug
(Lygus lineolaris). A permanent tolerance in connection with an earlier
registration action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a).
Effective June 1, 2017 to October 31, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 1,000
acres of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A
time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been
established in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 12, 2017 to November
15, 2017.
Missouri
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 85,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b). April 20, 2017 to
November 30, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 241,500 acres
of cotton to control tarnished plant bug (Lygus lineolaris). A
permanent tolerance in connection with an earlier registration action
has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a). Effective June 1, 2017 to
October 31, 2017.
New Mexico
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 140,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b). May 5, 2017 to
November 30, 2017.

New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a
maximum of 7,321 acres of apples, pears, and nectarines, to control the
brown marmorated stink bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with
this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective June
26, 2017 to October 15, 2017.
North Carolina
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of fluridone on a
maximum of 25,000 acres of sweet potatoes to control Palmer Amaranth. A
tolerance is established at 40 CFR 180.420(d) for vegetable, root and
tuber, group 1 at 0.1 ppm (for indirect or inadvertent residues) which
will support any residues resulting from this emergency use. Effective
April 25, 2017 to July 20, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a maximum of 50,000 acres
of sorghum (grain and forage) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-
limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established
in 40 CFR 180.668(b). Effective May 5, 2017 to November 30, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a maximum of 3,000 acres of
apples, pears, and nectarines, to control the brown marmorated stink
bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been
established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective May 12, 2017 to October 15,
2017.
    EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 4,000 acres
of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stink bug. A
time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been
established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective May 22, 2017 to October 15,
2017.
    EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 150 acres
of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-
limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established
in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 12, 2017 to November 15, 2017.
Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 300,000 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b). Effective April 9,
2017 to November 30, 2017.
Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemptions: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a
maximum of 24,973 acres of apples, pears, and nectarines, to control
the brown marmorated stink bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection
with this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective
April 20, 2017 to October 15, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 24,974 acres
of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stink bug. A
time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been
established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective May 22, 2017 to October 15,
2017.
South Carolina
Department of Pesticide Regulation
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 19,600 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b). Effective April 9,
2017 to November 30, 2017.
Tennessee
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 240,000 acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bug
(Lygus lineolaris). A permanent tolerance in connection with an earlier
registration action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a).
Effective June 1, 2017 to September 30, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of flupyradifurone on a maximum of 750 acres
of sweet sorghum (forage and syrup) to control sugarcane aphid. A time-
limited tolerance in connection with this action has been established
in 40 CFR 180.679(b). Effective June 12, 2017 to November 15, 2017.
Texas
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 5.5 million acres of cotton to control tarnished plant bug
(Lygus lineolaris). A permanent tolerance in connection with an earlier
registration action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(a).
Effective April 28, 2017 to October 31, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of tolfenpyrad on a maximum of 10,000 acres
of dry bulb onions to control thrips (Thrips tabaci). A time-limited
tolerance in connection with this action will be established in 40 CFR
180.675(b). Effective June 2, 2017 to July 10, 2017.
Virginia
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of sulfoxaflor on a
maximum of 16,591 acres of sorghum (grain and forage) to control
sugarcane aphid. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this
action has been established in 40 CFR 180.668(b). Effective April 9,
2017 to November 30, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a maximum of 29,000 acres
of apples, pears, and nectarines, to control the brown marmorated stink
bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been
established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective April 20, 2017 to October
15, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 29,000 acres
of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stink bug. A
time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been
established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective May 22, 2017 to October 15,
2017.
West Virginia
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of bifenthrin on a
maximum of 5,986 acres of apples, pears, and nectarines, to control the
brown marmorated stink bug. A time-limited tolerance in connection with
this action has been established in 40 CFR 180.442(b). Effective May 5,
2017 to October 15, 2017.
    EPA authorized the use of dinotefuran on a maximum of 5,986 acres
of pome and stone fruit to control the brown marmorated stink bug. A
time-limited tolerance in connection with this action has been
established in 40 CFR 180.603(b). Effective May 22, 2017 to October 15,
2017.

B. Federal Departments and Agencies

Defense Department
Department of Defense
Armed Forces Pest Management Board
    Specific exemption. EPA authorized use of permethrin for treatment
of unoccupied military aircraft to comply with disinsection
requirements of Italy and other countries, to prevent dissemination of
potential insect disease vectors such as the Aedes mosquito, vector of
the zika virus. Signed June 26,

2017, effective July 13, 2017 to July 13, 2018.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
    Public health exemptions: EPA authorized use of pyriproxyfen (a
larvicide) and Beauveria bassiana (a fungus pathogenic to adult
insects) to help control Aedes species of mosquitoes, vectors of the
zika virus, in Puerto Rico. Effective May 12, 2017 to May 12, 2018.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 18, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-25831 Filed 11-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12503-12504]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04900]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

 Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP14-504-000.
    Applicants: PGPipeline LLC.
    Description: Annual Adjustment of Fuel and Gas Loss Retention
Percentage to be effective 4/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140224-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-505-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Annual Report Pursuant to GTC 23.5 (CY2013).
    Filed Date: 2/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140224-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-506-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: PAL Neg Rate Agmts (42036, 42037, 42038, 42039, 42042,
42043, 42044) to be effective 2/22/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140224-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-507-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Annual Fuel Tracker Filing 2014 to be effective 4/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 2/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140224-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-508-000.
    Applicants: Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Event Tracker Filing to be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 2/24/14.
    Accession Number: 20140224-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 25, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-04900 Filed 3-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P