[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 76 (Thursday, April 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24377-24381]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08235]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2023-0104; FRL-10907-01-R3]

Air Plan Approval; Virginia; Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Amendments to Facility and Control Equipment Maintenance or Malfunction
Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia. This revision pertains to several state
regulatory changes affecting startup, shutdown and malfunction. This
SIP revision was submitted in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy and SIP call published on June 12, 2015, for provisions in
the Virginia SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the provisions of the
submitted SIP revision and proposing to determine that the SIP revision
corrects the deficiencies in Virginia's SIP identified in the June 12,
2015 SIP call. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2023-0104 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Silverman, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, Four Penn Center, 1600
John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Silverman can also be reached
via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action

    On February 22, 2013, the EPA issued a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking (the February 2013 Proposal) outlining EPA's policy
at the time with respect to SIP provisions related to periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction (SSM). EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP
provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply with
the CAA with regard to excess emission events.\1\ For each SIP
provision that the EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA, the
EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP
call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, the EPA issued
a document supplementing and revising what the Agency had previously
proposed on February 22, 2013 (the supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPR)), in light of a D.C. Circuit decision that determined
the CAA precludes authority of the EPA to create affirmative defense
provisions. EPA outlined its updated policy that affirmative defense
SIP provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed
in the supplemental proposal document to apply its revised
interpretation of the CAA to specific affirmative defense SIP
provisions and proposed SIP calls for those provisions where
appropriate (79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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, 78 FR 12460 (February 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), the EPA
finalized ``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to
SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter
referred to as the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action
clarified, restated, and updated the EPA's interpretation that SSM
exemptions (whether automatic or discretionary) and affirmative defense
SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP
Action found that certain SIP provisions in 36 states were
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and issued a SIP call
to those states to submit SIP revisions to address the inadequacies.
EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the affected states had
to submit such SIP revisions. States were required to submit corrective
revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP calls by November 22,
2016. One regulation in Virginia's SIP was included in the 2015 SSM SIP
Action. 80 FR 33840 at 33961 (June 12, 2015).
    EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\2\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to Virginia in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. The 2020
Memorandum did, however, indicate the EPA's intent at the time to
review SIP calls that were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to
determine whether the EPA should

maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ October 9, 2020, Memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\3\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all
communities and populations, including overburdened communities,
receive the full health and environmental protections provided by the
CAA.\4\ The 2021 Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the
2020 Memorandum of EPA's plans to review and potentially modify or
withdraw particular SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects the
EPA's intent. EPA intends to implement the principles laid out in the
2015 SSM SIP Action as the agency takes action on SIP submissions,
including Virginia's SIP submittal provided in response to the 2015 SIP
call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ September 30, 2021, Memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
    \4\ See 80 FR 33840, 33985, June 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Virginia's Provision Related to Emissions Limitations

    With respect to the Virginia SIP, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA
determined that one provision, 9 Virginia Administrative Code 5-20-
180(G), was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements.\5\ The
2015 SSM SIP Action raised three separate concerns regarding 9 Va.
Admin. Code 5-20-180(G),\6\ but it was not clear whether the provision
operated as an automatic exemption from otherwise applicable SIP
emissions limitations, a director's discretion provision allowing an
exemption for excess emissions during malfunctions because the
provision gives the state the authority to determine whether a
violation ``shall be judged to have taken place,'' or an affirmative
defense by which the state must make a judgment that the event is not a
violation. EPA found in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that any of the three
would render the provision substantially inadequate to comply with the
requirements of the CAA. This rationale underlying EPA's determination
that 9VAC5-20-180(G) was substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements, and therefore to issue a SIP call to Virginia to remedy
the provisions, is detailed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and its
accompanying proposals.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. at 33961.
    \6\ This document will hereafter use the abbreviated form of 9
Virginia Administrative Code Sec.  5-20-180(G), which is 9VAC5-20-
180(G) or 9 Va. Admin Code. 5-20-180(G).
    \7\ See 78 FR 12460 at 12498 (February 22, 2013), 79 FR 55920 at
55937 (September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the 2015 SSM SIP Action, Virginia submitted a SIP
revision on August 1, 2016. The submission requests the approval of a
revision to 9VAC5-20-180 (Pertaining to Facility Control Equipment and
Malfunction) as well as several administrative updates to other
portions of the Virginia Code to add a reference to 9VAC5-20-180. The
revisions in the August 1, 2016 submission are discussed more
extensively in section II of this document, but summarized here.
Revision B16, adopted by the Commonwealth on March 11, 2016 (effective
June 1, 2016), contains the revised portions of 9VAC5-20-180(G)
developed by Virginia to address the deficiencies cited as
substantially inadequate in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.\8\ The second
provision, called Revision D97, originally amended 9VAC5-20-180 on May
21, 2002 (effective August 1, 2002), but this change to the regulation
was not submitted as a SIP revision until it was included with
Virginia's 2016 SIP revision.\9\ The changes made in the 2002
amendments changed portions of 9VAC5-20-180 that were not subject to
the 2015 SIP call, mainly 9VAC5-20-180(A) through (C), and 9VAC5-20-
180(H) through (J). Revisions labeled as C09, D09 and E09 ask EPA to
update the SIP to capture amendments to five regulations in the
Virginia Administrative Code that are already in the Virginia SIP.
These regulations were each amended to add a reference to the
provisions in 9VAC5-20-180.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 32:18 VA.R. 2422-2423, May 2, 2016.
    \9\ 18:21 VA.R. 2793-2818, July 1, 2002.
    \10\ 32:7 VA.R. 1153-1191, November 30, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

A. Revision D97

    As discussed in the previous section, portions of Revision D97 are
being submitted as a SIP revision. See attachment ``B16-SIP-2b'' on the
3rd page of the PDF for the addition/strikeout copies of the
regulation, and attachment ``B16-sip-signed'' for the cover letter
accompanying Virginia's August 1, 2016, SIP submission, found in the
docket for this action, for additional clarification. In attachment
``B16-SIP-2b,'' portions of the regulation not intended for inclusion
in the SIP are redacted from Virginia's notice as indicated by the blue
boxes covering the text. The revisions to 9VAC5-20-180 begin on page 10
of the PDF.\11\ As noted in the previous section, the changes in D97
only impact the ``non-SIP called'' portions of 9VAC5-20-180 (i.e.,
9VAC5-20-180(A) through (C) and 9VAC5-20-180(H) through (J)). These
changes were adopted by Virginia on May 21, 2002 but were not submitted
as a SIP revision at that time. It appears that Virginia is now
submitting the 2002 changes embodied in D97 to demonstrate that these
changes went through the appropriate state notice and comment
procedures required by CAA section 110. Revision B16 is the most
material to the discussion in this section, as it is what is currently
adopted and effective in the Virginia Administrative Code. Revision B16
captures all of the changes made in revision D97 to 9VAC5-20-180(A)
through (C) and 9VAC5-20-180(H) through (J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 18:21 VA.R. 2793 at 2800, July 1, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Revision B16

    In the 2015 SSM SIP Action, EPA found that 9VAC5-20-180(G) created
an automatic exemption, an impermissible director's discretion
exemption, and/or a director's discretion determination that could also
be construed as an impermissible affirmative defense for violations of
emission limits. Revision B16 removed the discretionary exemption
language from 9VAC5-20-180(G) and modified several other sections in
9VAC5-20-180 which referenced the discretionary exemption. Prior to
Revision B16, 9VAC5-20-180(G) stated:

    No violation of applicable emission standards or monitoring
requirements shall be judged to have taken place if the excess
emissions or cessation of monitoring activities is due to a
malfunction, provided that:
    (1) The procedural requirements of this section were met or the
owner has submitted an acceptable application for a variance, which
is subsequently granted;
    (2) The owner has taken expeditious and reasonable measures to
minimize emissions during the breakdown period;
    (3) The owner has taken expeditious and reasonable measures to
correct the malfunction and return the facility to a normal
operation; and
    (4) The source is in compliance at least 90% of the operating
time over the most recent 12-month period.

    Virginia's 2016 change to 9VAC5-20-180(G), embodied in Revision
B16, modified 9VAC5-20-180(G) by removing any reference to violations.
The updated language in B16 states:

    In accordance with subsection C of this section, if the excess
emissions or cessation of monitoring activities is due to a
malfunction, the owner may demonstrate the following:
    (1) the cause of the excess emissions or cessation of monitoring
activities meets the definition of malfunction provided in 9VAC5-10-
20;
    (2) the procedural requirements of this section were met or the
owner has submitted an acceptable application for a variance, which
is subsequently granted;
    (3) the owner has taken expeditious and reasonable measures to
minimize emissions during the breakdown period;
    (4) the owner has taken expeditious and reasonable measures to
correct the malfunction and return the facility to a normal
operation; and
    (5) the source is in compliance with related applicable emission
standards or monitoring requirements at least 90% of the operating
time over the most recent 12-month period.

    The provision which previously potentially allowed for no violation
to be found was removed, but the criteria which previously would be
used to judge that no violation occurred remain. Virginia has not
explained the purpose for the submission of this information, but EPA
interprets the revised 9VAC5-20-180(G) as a reporting provision only.
EPA finds that this new reporting provision no longer has the potential
to bar Virginia, the EPA, or citizens from taking an enforcement action
if excess emissions result from a malfunction of emission control or
monitoring equipment. The facility may explain the circumstances
surrounding the excess emission, but the excess emission would still be
a violation of applicable SIP limitations. In addition to the change to
9VAC5-20-180(G), Revision B16 also includes 2016 amendments to 9VAC5-
20-180(C) to allow 9VAC5-20-180(G) to operate properly,\12\ and to make
several minor administrative changes. Revision B16 also includes an
amendment to 9VAC5-20-180(F) to add language stating that if there are
differences in provisions governing malfunction for sources subject to
the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under 40 CFR parts 60,
61 and 63, the more restrictive standard shall apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 9VAC5-20-180(C) contains requirements a facility must
undertake in the event that ``air pollution control equipment fails,
or malfunctions . . .'' Revision B16 adds text to 9VAC5-20-180(C)
which states ``and the demonstrations in subsection G of this
section.'' making the criteria in 9VAC5-20-180(G) a reporting
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Revisions C09, D09 and E09

    Revisions C09, D09 and E09 contain updates to five regulations in
the Virginia Administrative Code addressing control techniques
guidelines (CTGs) for the Northern Virginia Area which were
incorporated into the Virginia SIP by EPA in 2016.\13\ These updates
add a reference to the provisions in 9VAC5-20-180. The C09, D09 and E09
additions each state ``The provisions of 9VAC5-20-180 (Facility and
control equipment maintenance or malfunction) apply.'' See Table 1 in
this document, for a list with the name of each regulation for which a
reference to 9VAC5-20-180 was added. At the time these regulations were
promulgated by Virginia, there was uncertainty as to the status of
Virginia's malfunction regulations so Virginia did not submit them as a
SIP revision. When Virginia submitted revision B16, it included
Revisions C09, D09 and E09 as part of the SIP package.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 81 FR 72711 (October 21, 2016).

        Table 1--Updated References in Revisions C09, D09 and E09
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Title of regulation
                              updated to reference   Regulatory citation
          Revision              9 Va. admin. code     and updated text
                                 Sec.   5-20-180
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C09.........................  Article 56. Emission  9VAC5-40-8416.
                               Standards for         Facility and
                               Letterpress           control equipment
                               Printing Operations   maintenance or
                               in the Northern       malfunction.
                               Virginia Volatile    The provisions of
                               Organic Compound      9VAC5-20-180
                               Emissions Control     (Facility and
                               Area, 8-Hour Ozone    control equipment
                               Standard (Rule 4-     maintenance or
                               56).                  malfunction) apply.
C09.........................  Article 56.1.         9VAC5-40-8470.
                               Emission Standards    Facility and
                               for Offset            control equipment
                               Lithographic          maintenance or
                               Printing Operations   malfunction.
                               in the Northern      The provisions of
                               Virginia Volatile     9VAC5-20-180
                               Organic Compound      (Facility and
                               Emissions Control     control equipment
                               Area, 8-hour Ozone    maintenance or
                               Standard (Rule 4-     malfunction) apply.
                               56.1).
D09.........................  Article 57. Emission  9VAC5-40-8640.
                               Standards for         Facility and
                               Industrial Solvent    control equipment
                               Cleaning Operations   maintenance or
                               in the Northern       malfunction.
                               Virginia Volatile    The provisions of
                               Organic Compound      9VAC5-20-180
                               Emissions Control     (Facility and
                               Area, 8-hour Ozone    control equipment
                               Standard (Rule 4-     maintenance or
                               57).                  malfunction) apply.
D09.........................  Article 58.           9VAC5-40-8790.
                               Emissions Standards   Facility and
                               for Miscellaneous     control equipment
                               Industrial Adhesive   maintenance or
                               Application           malfunction.
                               Processes in the     The provisions of
                               Northern Virginia     9VAC5-20-180
                               Volatile Organic      (Facility and
                               Compound Emissions    control equipment
                               Control Area, 8-      maintenance or
                               hour Ozone Standard   malfunction) apply.
                               (Rule 4-58).
E09.........................  Article 59. Emission  9VAC5-40-8940.
                               Standards for         Facility and
                               Miscellaneous Metal   control equipment
                               Parts and Products    maintenance or
                               Coating Application   malfunction.
                               Systems in the       The provisions of
                               Northern Virginia     9VAC5-20-180
                               Volatile Organic      (Facility and
                               Compound Emissions    Control Equipment
                               Control Area, 8-      Maintenance or
                               hour Ozone Standard   Malfunction) apply.
                               (Rule 4-59).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Virginia SIP revision, submitted
August 1, 2016, which addresses the deficiency cited in EPA's 2015 SSM
SIP Action and makes other small changes to Virginia's SIP. The
revision removes the language from 9VAC5-20-180 which stated that no
violation of applicable emission standards or monitoring requirements
shall be judged to have taken place if the excess emissions or
cessation of monitoring activities is due to a malfunction, under
certain circumstances. EPA is therefore also proposing to determine
that this portion of Virginia's 2016 SIP revision corrects the
deficiencies identified in EPA's 2015 SSM SIP Action. EPA is not
reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action and is only taking comment on whether
this SIP revision is consistent with CAA requirements and whether it
addresses the inadequacies in the specific Virginia SIP provision
(9VAC5-20-180) identified in the 2015 SSM SIP Action.

IV. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts. . . .'' The opinion
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute,
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12,
1998, opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute
inapplicable to enforcement of any federally authorized programs, since
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the amendments to 9VAC5-20-180 (Pertaining to Facility
Control Equipment and Malfunction), 9VAC5-40-8416, 9VAC5-40-8470,
9VAC5-40-8640, 9VAC5-40-8790, and 9VAC5-40-8940 in section 52.2420, as
explained in Section II of this document. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region III Office (please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document for more information).

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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to
identify and address ``disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects'' of their actions on minority populations and
low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted
by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment
and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the

negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' The air agency did
not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ
analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of
the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral
to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 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 pertaining to Virginia's Startup, Shutdown,
and Malfunction Amendments to Facility and Control Equipment
Maintenance or Malfunction Regulations does not have tribal
implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2023-08235 Filed 4-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72141-72142]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28720]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on December 19, 2013, starting at 1:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by December 12,
2013.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th
floor, MacCracken Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Butner, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a
meeting of the ARAC taking place on December 19, 2013, at the Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591.
    The Agenda includes:
1. Recommendation Report
    a. Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group (Transport Airplane
and Engine Subcommittee [TAE])
2. Status Reports From Active Working Groups
    a. AC 120-17A Maintenance Control by Reliability Methods (ARAC)
    b. Flight Test Harmonization Working Group (TAE)
    c. Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (TAE)
    d. Engine Harmonization Working Group (TAE)
    e. Engine Endurance Testing Requirements--Revision of Section 33.87
3. New Task
    a. Airman Certification System Working Group
4. Status Report from the FAA
    a. Rulemaking Prioritization Working Group (RPWG)
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the
space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than December
12, 2013. Please provide the following

information: Full legal name, country of citizenship, and name of your
industry association, or applicable affiliation. If you are attending
as a public citizen please indicate so.
    For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by email or phone
for the teleconference call-in number and passcode. Callers outside the
Washington metropolitan area are responsible for paying long-distance
charges.
    The public must arrange by December 12, 2013 to present oral
statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to
the Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the
meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 25, 2013.
Brenda Courtney,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2013-28720 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8244-8245]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03071]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL22-29-000; QF15-850-003.
    Applicants: Magnolia Solar, LLC, Magnolia Solar, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Enforcement of the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 of Magnolia Solar, LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220208-5101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER22-680-001.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Revised WDAT Enhancements 2021 to be
effective 4/10/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220208-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-821-001.
    Applicants: Spotlight Power LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended Spotlight Power LLC Baseline
MBR Tariff & Application to be effective 3/16/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220208-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1001-000.
    Applicants: Union Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Joint Ownership Agreement--
UE-MJMEUC-Hannibal to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220208-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1002-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original IISA, Service
Agreement No. 6327; Queue Nos. AF1-130/AF1-162 to be effective 1/10/
2022.
    Filed Date: 2/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220208-5026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1003-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: LPL Second Amended PR
Agreement to be effective 2/9/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/8/22.
    Accession Number: 20220208-5087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES22-29-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of Consolidated Edison of New
York Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/7/22.

    Accession Number: 20220207-5280.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/22.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 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 8, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-03071 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 41534]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17855]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on July 14, 2011 at
10.m., in the Auditorium, Room L-002, to hear oral argument in an
appeal by Comverse Technology, Inc. from an initial decision of an
administrative law judge.
    Comverse is a New York corporation that provides a variety of
services in the telecommunications industry through its subsidiaries.
Comverse's common stock is registered with the Commission pursuant to
Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    On July 22, 2010, the law judge issued his decision finding that
Comverse had violated Securities Exchange Act Section 13(a) and
Exchange Act Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 by failing to file quarterly and
annual reports for any period after October 31, 2005. The law judge
revoked the registration of Comverse's common stock. Subsequent to the
issuance of the law judge's decision, Comverse has filed certain annual
and quarterly reports.
    Comverse does not appeal the law judge's findings of violation but,
rather, the law judge's determination to revoke its registration.
Exchange Act Section 12(j) authorizes sanctions, including revocation,
for reporting violations where it is ``necessary or appropriate for the
protection of investors.'' Issues likely to be considered at oral
argument include the extent to which, under the circumstances,
sanctions are warranted.
    Commissioner Paredes, as duty officer, determined that no earlier
notice thereof was possible.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.

     July 12, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17855 Filed 7-12-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57551-57552]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-551-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on September 10, 2014, Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP (Texas Eastern), pursuant to its blanket certificate authorization
granted in Docket No. CP82-535-000,\1\ filed an application in
accordance to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) as amended, requesting
authority to abandon by sale certain pipeline facilities and removing
related ancillary facilities, as necessary, located in Lincoln Parish,
Louisiana. The proposed abandonment will enable Texas Eastern and its
customers to eliminate the need for capital expenditures associated
with the ongoing maintenance and repair of facilities that are no
longer required for gas service, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 21 FERC ] 62,199 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Texas Eastern requests authorization to abandon by sale to Regency,
5.97 miles of 14-inch diameter and 2.83 miles of 12-inch diameter
pipelines designated as Line 2-H, and 2.1 miles of 12-inch diameter
pipeline designated a Line 2-H-1. In additional, Texas Eastern proposes
to remove certain related facilities. Regency specializes in the
gathering and processing, contract compression, contract treating,
transportation, fractionation and storage of natural gas and natural
gas liquids. Regency intends to operate the pipelines as low-pressure
gathering upon acquisition. The 2-H and 2-H-1 pipelines have not
provided service to customers since April 2010, and its capacity is not
currently subscribed under any firm service agreements.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lisa
A. Connolly, General Manager, Rates & Certificates, Texas Eastern

Transmission, LP, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by phone at
(713) 627-4102, or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERC
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
interveners to file electronically.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.

    Dated: September 18, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-22793 Filed 9-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41626-41629]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0162, FRL-8444-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Implementation
Plan Revision; State of New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is approving a request
from the State of New Jersey to revise its State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for ozone to incorporate state-adopted amendments to Subchapter
19 ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen''
and related amendments to Subchapter 16 ``Control and Prohibition of
Air Pollution by Volatile Organic Compounds.'' The amendments relate to
the control of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from
stationary industrial sources. This SIP revision consists of control
measures needed to meet the shortfall in emission reductions in New
Jersey's 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIP as identified by
EPA.
    The intended effect of this action is to approve the state control
strategy, which will result in emission reductions that will help
achieve attainment of the national ambient air quality standards for
ozone required by the Clean Air Act (the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective August 30, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) which replaces the Regional
Materials in EDOCKET (RME) docket system. The new FDMS is located at
http://www.regulations.gov and the docket ID for this action is EPA-

R02-OAR-2006-0162. All documents in the docket are listed in the FDMS
index. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in FDMS or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor,
New York, New York 10007-1866. Copies of the documents relevant to this
action are also available for public inspection during normal business
hours, by appointment at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC; and the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, Office of Energy, Bureau of Air Quality
Planning, 401 East State Street, CN027, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony (Ted) Gardella,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Air Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For detailed information and EPA's analysis
of New Jersey's revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
ozone see EPA's proposed rulemaking action (72 FR 11812, March 14,
2007) which can be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov.

    The following table of contents describes the format for this
notice.

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
II. What Comments Were Received and How Has EPA Responded to Them?
III. What Role Does This Rule Play in the Ozone SIP?
IV. What Are EPA's Conclusions?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    New Jersey submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for ozone dated December 16, 2005, for EPA approval, that
includes a new rule and amendments to Subchapter 19 ``Control and
Prohibition of Air Pollution from Oxides of Nitrogen''; Subchapter 16
``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic
Compounds''; Subchapter 8 ``Permits and Certificates for Minor
Facilities (and Major Facilities Without an Operating Permit)''; and
Subchapter 22 ``Operating Permits.''
    Except for certain Open Market Emissions Trading (OMET) Program
provisions in Subchapters 8, 16, and 19, and compliance dates beyond
November 15, 2007 for repowering and innovative control technology, EPA
is approving, as revisions to the New Jersey ozone SIP, the state-
adopted amendments to Subchapter 19 and Subchapter 16, each adopted by
New Jersey on September 8, 2005, and submitted to EPA on December 16,
2005. EPA is currently reviewing past amendments to Subchapter 8 and
will address the approvability of all Subchapter 8 amendments at the
same time in a future action. Subchapter 22 is New Jersey's operating
permit rule that was separately approved under title V of the Clean Air
Act and therefore Subchapter 22 should not have been submitted as a SIP
revision. EPA has reviewed the new amendments to Subchapter 22 and will
formally respond to New Jersey with a letter.
    New Jersey amended Subchapter 19 to reduce emissions of
NOX in response to emission reduction shortfalls, identified
by EPA (64 FR 70380, December 16, 1999), for attainment of New Jersey's
1-hour ozone standard. New Jersey amended Subchapter 16 to be
consistent with amendments to Subchapter 19. Except for certain OMET
provisions in Subchapters 8, 16, and 19, and compliance dates beyond
November 15, 2007 for repowering and innovative control technology, New
Jersey's state-adopted Subchapters 16 and 19 are fully approvable as a
SIP-strengthening measure for New Jersey's ground level ozone SIP. The
amendments to Subchapters 16 and 19 in New Jersey's submittal to EPA
meet New Jersey's commitment by adopting control measures for
additional emission reductions to attain the 1-hour ozone

standard and close the shortfall. Because EPA is determining that the
State has now adopted measures to fulfill its SIP commitment to address
the NOX shortfall, EPA will not proceed with the May 27,
2004 (69 FR 30249) proposed Finding of Failure to Implement. For a
detailed discussion on the content and EPA's analysis of New Jersey's
SIP submittal, the reader is referred to EPA's proposed rulemaking
action (72 FR 11812, March 14, 2007).

II. What Comments Were Received and How Has EPA Responded to Them?

    The public comment period on EPA's proposed approval of New
Jersey's December 16, 2005 SIP submittal ended on April 13, 2007. EPA
received one comment on the proposed approval action. The comment
addressed EPA's proposed approval of the rule regarding emergency
generators. Although EPA proposed to approve the rule, EPA (1) noted
that in February 2006 the Agency sent a letter to the State indicating
that NSR and title V permits should continue to include an hours of
operation limit in permits; and (2) recommended that New Jersey revise
its regulations to include emergency generator restrictions that were
in the previous SIP-approved version of the rule. The comment and EPA's
response follows.
    Comments: The Division of Air Quality, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) commented that it ``disagrees with the
USEPA suggestion that all NJDEP issued permits for emergency units
include an operating hour limitation to cover emergencies (i.e., 500
hours per year). Rather, the only operating time limitation in permits
for emergency units should be that time needed for testing or
maintenance, as per manufacturer's specifications and government safety
ordinances.'' NJDEP continued, ``It is unreasonable to base maximum
potential emissions on emergency scenarios which may or may not
materialize.'' Additionally, NJDEP noted that the Subchapter 19
definition of ``Emergency Generator'' and ``Emergency'' make the 500
hour limitation superfluous and that if operation of an emergency
generator is consistent with those definitions an hourly restriction in
unnecessary. NJDEP also noted that it currently utilizes a total
operating hour limit in title V permits as requested by EPA, but
objects to its use there also.
    Response: EPA notes that it did not propose to condition approval
of the SIP rule on the recommendations it made in the February 2006
letter or in the proposed rule. Thus, these recommendations were not
intended to have binding effect. Because it is not necessary for the
rules to reflect these recommendations in order to be fully approvable,
EPA is moving forward with its approval. EPA will continue to discuss
with New Jersey the concerns noted in their comment, which concerns
were raised by EPA with respect to New Jersey's permitting programs.
Specifically, as noted in EPA's proposed rule, potential to emit (PTE)
requirements for emergency generators should be included in the
provisions of New Jersey's permitting regulations that identify which
sources must obtain a permit, i.e. Subchapters 8 and 22. For rule
consistency, EPA believes it appropriate, although not required, that
New Jersey revise the current state-adopted Subchapter 19 to include
the emergency generator restrictions (e.g., (1) the 500 hour annual
operating restriction, and (2) the 25 tons per year (tpy) PTE source
exemption).

III. What Role Does This Rule Play in the Ozone SIP?

    When EPA evaluated New Jersey's 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstrations, EPA determined that additional emission reductions were
needed for the State's severe nonattainment areas in order for the
State to attain the 1-hour ozone standard (64 FR 70380; December 16,
1999). EPA provided that states in the Ozone Transport Region could
achieve these emission reductions through regional control programs.
New Jersey decided to participate with the other states in the
Northeast in an Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) regulatory development
effort which lead to six model control measures. These amendments to
Subchapter 19 incorporate a portion of the OTC model rule for
additional NOX control measures. The emission reductions
from this control measure fully meet the commitment in the New Jersey
SIP to achieve an additional 0.88 tpy NOX reduction in the
New Jersey portion of the Philadelphia, Wilmington, Trenton
nonattainment area and 3.45 tpy NOX reduction in the New
Jersey portion of the New York, Northern New Jersey, Long Island
nonattainment area. The emission reductions will help ensure attainment
of the 1-hour ozone standard.

IV. What Are EPA's Conclusions?

    EPA evaluated New Jersey's submittal for consistency with the Act,
EPA regulations and EPA policy. The adopted new control measures will
strengthen the SIP by achieving the additional NOX emission
reductions that the State committed to achieve. Accordingly, EPA is
approving the revisions to Subchapter 19, and related revisions to
Subchapter 16, as adopted on September 8, 2005, except that EPA is not
acting, at this time, on OMET Program provisions in Subchapters 16 and
19 or the new amendments to phased compliance plans by repowering and
innovative control technology in sections 19.21 and 19.23,
respectively. Additionally, EPA is not approving any dates that allow
for NOX RACT compliance beyond May 31, 1995, in general, and
beyond May 1, 1999 for completion of repowering, for sources that
should have complied by those dates as required in the EPA-approved
SIP. At a later date, EPA will act on Subchapter 8, as adopted by New
Jersey on September 8, 2005.
    With the adoption of Subchapter 19, New Jersey has fulfilled its
obligation to adopt all six control measures that New Jersey identified
as necessary to attain the 1-hour ozone standard. These six control
measures are applicable statewide and the emission reductions projected
from their implementation meets the additional emission reductions that
EPA identified as necessary to attain the 1-hour ozone standard.
Because New Jersey has now implemented the elements of its SIP that
were the subject of EPA's May 27, 2004 (69 FR 30249) proposed Finding
of Failure to Implement, EPA will not move forward to finalize that
finding.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act.
This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 13, 2007.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart FF--New Jersey

0
2. Section 52.1570 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(81) to read
as follows:

52.1570  Identification of plans.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
* * * * *
    (81) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan for ozone dated
December 16, 2005 by the State of New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) that establishes revised control
measures for achieving additional reductions of NOX
emissions from stationary combustion sources.
    (i) Incorporation by reference:
    (A) Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 19, of the New Jersey
Administrative Code entitled ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution
from Oxides of Nitrogen,'' effective October 17, 2005 and Title 7,
Chapter 27, Subchapter 16 of the New Jersey Administrative Code
entitled ``Control and Prohibition of Air Pollution by Volatile Organic
Compounds,'' effective October 17, 2005.
    (ii) Additional information:
    (A) December 16, 2005 letter from Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell,
NJDEP, to Alan J. Steinberg, EPA, requesting EPA approval of revisions
to Subchapters 8, 16, 19, and 22.

0
3. In 52.1605, the table is amended by revising the entries for
Subchapters 16 and 19 under the headings ``Title 7, Chapter 27'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1605  EPA-approved New Jersey regulations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         State regulation               State effective date        EPA approved date           Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                               Title 7, Chapter 27

                                                  * * * * * * *
Subchapter 16, ``Control and       October 17, 2005..............  July 31, 2007        Subchapter 16 is
 Prohibition of Air Pollution by                                    [Insert FR page      approved into the SIP
 Volatile Organic Compounds.''                                      citation].           except for Open Market
                                                                                Emissions Trading
                                                                                (OMET) provisions at
                                                                                16.1A(g) and 16.1A(h).

                                                  * * * * * * *
Subchapter 19, ``Control and       October 17, 2005..............  July 31, 2007        Subchapter 19 is
 Prohibition of Air Pollution                                       [Insert FR page      approved into the SIP
 from Oxides of Nitrogen.''                                         citation].           except for the
                                                                                following provisions:
                                                                                (1) Open Market
                                                                                Emissions Trading
                                                                                (OMET) provisions at
                                                                                19.3(g), 19.3(h), 19.27
                                                                                and 19.27 Appendix; and
                                                                                (2) New amendments to
                                                                                phased compliance plan
                                                                                through repowering in
                                                                                Sec.   19.21 that allow
                                                                                for implementation
                                                                                beyond May 1, 1999; and
                                                                                (3) New amendments to
                                                                                phased compliance plan
                                                                                through the use of
                                                                                innovative control
                                                                                technology in Sec.
                                                                                19.23 that allow for
                                                                                implementation beyond
                                                                                May 1, 1999.

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

 [FR Doc. E7-14480 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1280-1281]
[FR Doc No: 2016-304]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Extension of
Public Scoping Comment Period for the Spaceport Camden Environmental
Impact Statement.

AGENCY: DOT, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), lead Federal
agency; and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National
Park Service, cooperating agencies.

ACTION: Notice of extension of public scoping comment period.

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

SUMMARY: A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement, open a public scoping period, and hold a public scoping
meeting for the proposed Spaceport Camden was published in the Federal
Register by the Federal Aviation Administration on November 6, 2015.
The comment period for the Draft EIS was to end on January 4, 2016
(more than 45 days after publication of the Notice of Intent in the
Federal Register). This notice extends the comment period to January
18, 2016 to allow the public additional time to provide scoping
comments.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments, statements, or questions concerning
scoping issues or the EIS process to Ms. Stacey M. Zee, FAA
Environmental Specialist, Spaceport Camden County EIS c/o Leidos, 20201
Century Boulevard, Suite 105, Germantown, MD 20874. Comments can also
be sent by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacey M. Zee, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Suite 325, Washington, DC 20591; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 6, 2015, the FAA published a
Notice of Intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement, open a public scoping period, and hold
a public scoping meeting for the proposed Spaceport Camden in the
Federal Register and requested comments. The public scoping period was
originally scheduled to close on January 4, 2016, but the FAA extended
the comment period an additional 14 consecutive days, changing the
deadline for submitting public scoping comments from January 4, 2016 to
January 18, 2016.
    Additional information regarding the proposed project is available
online at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/camden_spaceport/.

    Issued in Washington, DC on January 5, 2016.
Daniel Murray,
Manager, Space Transportation Development Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-304 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 73068-73069]
[DOCID:fr29no10-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Competing Preliminary Permit Applications Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, and Motions To Intervene

November 19, 2010.

Lock Hydro Friends Fund XLIII....  Project No. 13745-000
FFP Missouri 14, LLC.............  Project No. 13758-000
Solia 4 Hydroelectric LLC........  Project No. 13767-000
Monongahela 4 Hydro, LLC.........  Project No. 13788-000

    On May 18, 2010, Lock Hydro Friends Fund XLIII, FFP Missouri 14,
LLC, Solia 4 Hydroelectric LLC, and on May 19, 2010, Monongahela 4
Hydro, LLC filed applications, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal
Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of hydropower at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Monongahela River Lock & Dam No. 4
located on the Monongahela River in Washington County, Pennsylvania.
The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the
permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit
term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to
perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or
waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    Descriptions of the proposed Monongahela River Lock & Dam No. 4
Projects:
    Lock Hydro Friends Fund XLIII's project (Project No. 13745-000)
would consist of: (1) Two 45-foot-high, 75-foot-long prefabricated
concrete walls attached to the downstream side of the Corps dam which
would support one frame module; (2) the frame module would be 109 feet
long and weigh 1.16 million pounds and contain 10 generating units with
a total combined capacity of 18.0 megawatts (MW); (3) a new switchyard
containing a transformer; (4) a proposed 5,000-foot-long, 36.7-kilovolt
(kV) transmission line to an existing substation. The proposed project
would have an average annual generation of 78.894 gigawatt-hours (GWh),
which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Mark R. Stover, Hydro Green Energy LLC, 5090
Richmond Avenue 390, Houston, TX 77056; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
x711.
    FFP Missouri 14, LLC's project (Project No. 13758-000) would
consist of: (1) An excavated intake channel slightly longer and wider
than the powerhouse; (2) a 200-foot-long, 25-foot-wide, 60-foot-high
proposed powerhouse containing four generating units having a total
installed capacity of 20.0 MW; (3) an excavated tailrace channel
slightly longer and wider than the powerhouse; (4) a proposed 5,500-
foot-long, 34.0 to 230-kV transmission line. The proposed project would
have an average annual generation of 85.0 GWh, which would be sold to a
local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978)
283-2822.
    Solia 4 Hydroelectric LLC's project (Project No. 13767-000) would
consist of: (1) A proposed 300-foot-long, 80-foot-wide excavated intake
channel on the left bank of the dam, requiring removal of part of the
left dam abutment; (2) a proposed powerhouse containing four generating
units having a total installed capacity of 18.7 MW; (3) a 200-foot-
long, 80-foot-wide excavated tailrace; (4) a proposed 4,900-foot-long,
34.0 to 230-kV transmission line. The proposed project would have an
average annual generation of 81.8 GWh, which would be sold to a local
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Douglas Spaulding, Nelson Energy, 8441
Wayzata Blvd. Suite 101, Golden Valley, MN 55426; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Monongahela 4 Hydro, LLC's project (Project No. 13788-000) would
consist of: (1) A proposed 190-foot-long excavated power canal; (2) a
proposed powerhouse containing two generating units having a total
installed capacity of 8.2 MW; (3) a 145-foot-long excavated tailrace;
(4) a proposed 0.8-mile-long, 69.0-kV transmission line. The proposed
project would have an average annual generation of 28.1 GWh, which
would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Brent Smith, Symbiotics LLC., P.O. Box 535,
Rigby, ID 83442; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
website http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-

free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although
the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may
also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13745-000, 13758-000, 13767-000, or 13788-
000) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29854 Filed 11-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P