[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39090-39097]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17346]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0104; FRL-9966-18-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Regional Haze Plan and Prong 4
(Visibility) for the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2008 Ozone
NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take
the following four actions regarding the Alabama State Implementation
Plan (SIP), contingent upon a final determination from the Agency that
a state's participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
continues to meet the Regional Haze Rule (RHR)'s criteria to qualify as
an alternative to the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART): Approve the portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP
submittal seeking to change reliance from the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) to CSAPR for certain regional haze requirements; convert EPA's
limited approval/limited disapproval of Alabama's July 15, 2008,
regional haze SIP to a full approval; approve the visibility prong of
Alabama's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and
2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS); and convert EPA's disapproval of the visibility
portion of Alabama's infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS to an approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0104 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR

    Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires
states to submit regional haze SIPs that contain such measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate BART as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are
directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible''
sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-
specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an
emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the
alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). EPA provided states with
this flexibility in the RHR, adopted in 1999, and further refined the
criteria for assessing whether an alternative program provides for
greater reasonable progress in two subsequent rulemakings. See 64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999); 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005); 71 FR 60612 (October
13, 2006).
    EPA demonstrated that CAIR would achieve greater reasonable
progress than BART in revisions to the regional haze program made in
2005.\1\ See 70 FR 39104. In those revisions, EPA amended its
regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-and-
trade programs pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP or states that
remain subject to a CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) need not
require affected BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to
install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and
nitrogen oxides (NOX). As a result of EPA's determination
that CAIR was ``better-than-BART,'' a number of states in the CAIR
region, including Alabama, relied on the CAIR cap-and-trade programs as
an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2 and
NOX in designing their regional haze SIPs. These states also
relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy (LTS) for
achieving their reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for their regional
haze programs. However, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA
without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by
CAIR. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On
August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued FIPs to implement the rule
in CSAPR-subject states.\2\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to
begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states
(and the District of Columbia), including Alabama, that contributed
to downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    \2\ CSAPR requires 28 eastern states to limit their statewide
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other
states' ability to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone
NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR
emissions limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide
``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2, annual
NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each covered
state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented in two
phases of generally increasing stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets
applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2 budgets
applying to emissions in 2017 and later years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling that CAIR was ``fatally
flawed'' and its resulting status as a temporary measure following that
ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIPs to the extent
that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the
requirement for a LTS sufficient to achieve the state-adopted RPGs. On
these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of Alabama's
regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012, triggering the requirement for EPA
to promulgate a FIP unless Alabama submitted and EPA approved a SIP
revision that corrected the deficiency. See 77 FR 33642. EPA finalized
a limited approval of Alabama's regional haze SIP on June 28, 2012, as
meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth
in the CAA and the RHR. See 77 FR 38515.
    In the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval action, EPA also amended
the RHR to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR
trading program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading
program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state
trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--
qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.\3\
See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Since EPA promulgated this amendment, numerous
states covered by CSAPR have come to rely on the provision through
either SIPs or FIPs.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Legal challenges to the CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from
state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6,
2012).
    \4\ EPA has promulgated FIPs relying on CSAPR participation for
BART purposes for Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
and West Virginia, 77 FR at 33654, and Nebraska, 77 FR 40150, 40151
(July 6, 2012). EPA has approved Minnesota's and Wisconsin's SIPs
relying on CSAPR participation for BART purposes. See 77 FR 34801,
34806 (June 12, 2012) for Minnesota and 77 FR 46952, 46959 (August
7, 2012) for Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C.
Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating
and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of
CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir.
2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United
States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to
the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the
high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct.
1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most
respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as
to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d
118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2
SO2 emissions budgets for Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina,
and Texas and the Phase 2 ozone-season NOX budgets for 11
states. This litigation ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for
three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs
were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs,
to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets that were
originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, began on January 1,
2017.

    On November 10, 2016, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) explaining the Agency's belief that the potentially material
changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage resulting from the D.C.
Circuit's remand will be limited to the withdrawal of the FIP
provisions providing SO2 and annual NOX budgets
for Texas and ozone-season NOX budgets for Florida. This is
due, in part, to EPA's approval of the portion of Alabama's October 26,
2015, SIP submittal adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and
SO2 budgets equivalent to the federally-developed budgets
and to commitments from Georgia and South Carolina to submit SIP
revisions adopting Phase 2 annual NOX and SO2
budgets equal to or more stringent than the federally-developed
budgets. See 81 FR 78954. Since publication of the NPRM, Georgia and
South Carolina have submitted these SIP revisions to EPA.\5\ In the
NPRM, EPA also proposed to determine that the limited changes to the
scope of CSAPR coverage do not alter EPA's conclusion that CSAPR
remains ``better-than-BART;'' that is, that participation in CSAPR
remains available as an alternative to BART for EGUs covered by the
trading program. At this time, EPA has not finalized this proposed
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Georgia's rulemaking to adopt the Phase 2 annual
NOX and SO2 budgets became state effective on
July 20, 2017, and the State will submit a SIP revision to EPA in
the near future. South Carolina submitted a SIP revision to EPA for
parallel processing on May 26, 2017, to adopt the Phase 2 annual
NOX and SO2 budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP submittal also seeks to correct the
deficiencies identified in the June 7, 2012, limited disapproval of its
regional haze SIP by replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on
CSAPR.\6\ Specifically, Alabama requests that EPA amend the State's
regional haze SIP by replacing its reliance on CAIR with CSAPR to
satisfy SO2 and NOX BART requirements and
SO2 reasonable progress requirements for EGUs formerly
subject to CAIR,\7\ and to support the RPGs for the Sipsey Wilderness
Area in Alabama for the first planning period. EPA is proposing to take
these actions in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ On August 31, 2016 (81 FR 59869), EPA approved portions of
the October 26, 2015, SIP submission incorporating into Alabama's
SIP the State's regulations requiring Alabama EGUs to participate in
CSAPR state trading programs for annual NOX and
SO2 emissions integrated with the CSAPR federal trading
programs and thus replacing the corresponding FIP requirements. In
the August 31, 2016, action, EPA did not take any action regarding
Alabama's request in this October 26, 2015, SIP submission to revise
the State's regional haze SIP nor regarding the prong 4 for the 2008
lead, 2008 8-hour ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, and 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
    \7\ In its regional haze SIP, Alabama concluded and EPA found
acceptable the State's determination that no additional controls
beyond CAIR are reasonable for SO2 for affected Alabama
EGUs for the first implementation period. See 77 FR 11949 (February
28, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Infrastructure SIPs

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years (or
less, if the Administrator so prescribes) after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred
to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure
SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address
basic SIP elements such as for monitoring, basic program requirements,
and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and
maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More
specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements
related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an
infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and
analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions
already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time in
which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or
revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in 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 from 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 from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Through this action, EPA is proposing to approve the prong 4
portion of Alabama's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and to convert EPA's disapproval of the prong 4
portion of Alabama's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS to an approval, as discussed in section IV of this
notice.\8\ All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for
these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate
rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this
proposal is provided below. For comprehensive information on these
NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register notices cited in the
following subsections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 82 FR 9512 (February 7, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS
    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour primary SO2
NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) based on a 3-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. Alabama
submitted an infrastructure SIP submission for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS on April 23, 2013. This proposed action only
addresses the prong 4 element of that submission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The other portions of Alabama's April 23 2013,
SO2 infrastructure submission have been addressed in a
previous EPA action. See 82 FR 3637 (January 12, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS
    On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required
to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. Alabama
submitted infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS on April 23, 2013, and December 9, 2015. This
proposed action only addresses the prong 4 element of those
submissions.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The other portions for Alabama's April 23 2013, and
December 9, 2015, NO2 infrastructure submissions have
been addressed in previous EPA actions. See 81 FR 83142 (November
21, 2016); 80 FR 14019 (March 18, 2015).

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

3. 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the annual primary
PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).
See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit
infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to
EPA no later than December 14, 2015. Alabama submitted an
infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on
December 9, 2015. This proposed action only addresses the prong 4
element of that submission.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The other portions of Alabama's December 9, 2015,
PM2.5 infrastructure submission are being addressed in
separate actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075
parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were
required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. Alabama submitted an
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS on August 20, 2012.
On February 7, 2017, EPA disapproved the prong 4 element of Alabama's
2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure submission. See 82 FR 9512. This
proposed action addresses that disapproval and proposes to convert it
to a full approval for prong 4.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The other portions of Alabama's March 12, 2008, ozone
infrastructure SIP submission have been addressed in previous EPA
actions. See 80 FR 14019 (March 3, 2015); 80 FR 17689 (April 2,
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of 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 ``each such
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (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 section 169A of the CAA, and
nonattainment new source review (NSR) 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.\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\14\
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.\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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)).
    \15\ 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 section 110(a)(1) and (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.\16\ 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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).
    \17\ 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 section 110(a)(1) and (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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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 attainment plan SIP submissions
required by part D to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of section
110(a)(2); thus, 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
prevention of significant deterioration (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.\19\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\20\ 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.\21\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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.
    \20\ ``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.
    \21\ 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). Regardless of how
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 section 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 greenhouse gases. 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 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, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor NSR 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 (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; \22\ (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 that 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.\23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA's
interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of
affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See ``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). As a
result, EPA's 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no longer represents the
EPA's view concerning the validity of affirmative defense
provisions, in light of the requirements of section 113 and section
304.
    \23\ 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 or affirmative defense 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 section 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
section 110(a)(1) and (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 implementation
plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to
mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\24\
Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions,
such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\25\ 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.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 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).
    \25\ 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 section 110(k)(6) of the CAA 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).
    \26\ 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 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are the Prong 4 requirements?

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires a state's implementation
plan to contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from
emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's
efforts to protect visibility under part C of the CAA (which includes
sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4
requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has
found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources
that impacts the visibility program requirements in other states. The
2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be
pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need
only address the potential for interference with protection of
visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the
new or revised NAAQS applies.
    The 2013 Guidance lays out how a state's infrastructure SIP may
satisfy prong 4. One way that a state can meet the requirements is via
confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that the state has an
approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a
state participating in a regional planning process include all measures
needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations
agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP
will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's
jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included
in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.
    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze
SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a
demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions
within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans
to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need
to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure
that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze RPGs
for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Alabama addressed Prong 4 and
regional haze?

    Alabama's August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP
submission; April 23, 2013, and December 9, 2015, 2010 1-hour
NO2 submissions; April 23, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2
submission; and December 9, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5
submission rely on the State having a fully approved regional haze SIP
to satisfy its prong 4 requirements. However, EPA has not fully
approved Alabama's regional haze SIP, as the Agency issued a limited
disapproval of the State's original regional haze plan on June 7, 2012,
due to its reliance on CAIR. To correct the deficiencies in its
regional haze SIP and obtain approval of the aforementioned
infrastructure SIPs that rely on the regional haze SIP, the State
submitted a SIP revision on October 26, 2015, to replace reliance on
CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP submittal, Part H--
Proposed Revisions to Alabama Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan (SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve the regional haze portion of the
State's October 26, 2015, SIP revision and convert EPA's previous
action on Alabama's regional haze SIP from a limited approval/limited
disapproval to a full approval because final approval of this portion
of the SIP revision would correct the deficiencies that led to EPA's
limited approval/limited disapproval of the State's regional haze SIP.
Specifically, EPA's approval of this portion of Alabama's October 26,
2015, SIP revision would satisfy the SO2 and NOx BART
requirements and SO2 reasonable progress requirements for
EGUs formerly subject to CAIR and the requirement that a LTS include
measures as necessary to achieve the State-adopted RPGs. Because a
state may satisfy prong 4 requirements through a fully approved
regional haze SIP, EPA is therefore also proposing to approve the prong
4 portion of Alabama's April 23, 2013, and December 9, 2015, 2010 1-
hour NO2 infrastructure submissions; the April 23, 2013,
2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure submission; and the December
9, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission; and to convert EPA's
February 7, 2017, disapproval of the prong 4 portions of Alabama's
August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure submission to an
approval. However, as noted above, EPA proposed in November 2016 to
find that CSAPR remains ``better than BART'' given the changes to
CSAPR's scope in response to the D.C. Circuit's remand, but the Agency
has not finalized this national rulemaking. Therefore, EPA will not
finalize the proposed approvals of Alabama's regional haze and prong 4
submissions described above unless it has finalized the CSAPR remains
``better-than-BART'' rulemaking or otherwise determined that
participation in CSAPR remains a viable alternative to BART.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to take the following actions,
contingent upon a final determination that CSAPR continues to qualify
as an alternative to the application of BART under the RHR: (1) Approve
the regional haze portion of Alabama's October 26, 2015, SIP submission
to change reliance from CAIR to CSAPR; (2) convert EPA's limited
approval/limited disapproval of Alabama's July 15, 2008, regional haze
SIP to a full approval; (3) approve the prong 4 portion of Alabama's
April 23, 2013, and December 9, 2015, 2010 1-hour NO2
submissions; April 23, 2013, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and
December 9, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission; and (4)
convert EPA's February 7, 2017, disapproval of the prong 4 portion of
Alabama's August 20, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission to an approval.
All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the infrastructure
SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

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, these
proposed actions merely propose to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and do not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' 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);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

     are 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.);
     do 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);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are 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
     do 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).
    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, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: August 4, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-17346 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16420-16421]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0031]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for extension of a currently approved collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: This document solicits public comments on continuation of the
requirements for the collection of information entitled ``Motorcycle
Helmet Labeling'' (OMB Control Number: 2127-0518).
    Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the
public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that

Docket Management receives them no later than May 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID
Number above) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at (202) 366-
9324. Please identify the proposed collection of information for which
a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB clearance number. It is
requested, but not required, that two copies of the comment be
provided.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for
collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Mr. Check
Kam, US. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., West Building Room W43-451, NVS-113, Washington, DC 20590. Mr.
Kam's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and fax number is (202) 493-
2990. Please identify the relevant collection of information by
referring to its OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collections of information:
    (1) Title: 49 CFR 571.218, Motorcycle Helmets (Labeling).
    OMB Number: 2127-0518.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Motorcycle helmet manufacturers
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The National Traffic
Vehicle Safety statute at 49 U.S.C. Subchapter II Standards and
Compliance, Sections 30111 and 30117, authorizes the issuance of
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The Secretary is
authorized to issue, amend, and revoke such rules and regulations as
he/she deems necessary. The Secretary is also authorized to require
manufacturers to provide information to first purchasers of motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment when the vehicle equipment is
purchased, in the form of printed matter placed in the vehicle or
attached to the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.
    Using this authority, the agency issued the initial FMVSS No. 218,
``Motorcycle helmets,'' in 1974. Motorcycle helmets are devices used to
protect motorcyclists from head injury in motor vehicle accidents.
FMVSS No. 218 S5.6 requires that each helmet shall be labeled
permanently and legibly in a manner such that the label(s) can be read
easily without removing padding or any other permanent part.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 9,100 hours.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 45.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Department, including whether the information will have
practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the
burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c); delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

Lori K. Summers,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-06534 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70523-70524]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI14-07-000]

Bass/Wilson Properties, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Petition for Declaratory Order.
    b. Docket No: DI14-07-000.
    c. Date Filed: September 23, 2014.
    d. Applicant: Bass/Wilson Properties, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Bass/Wilson Hydropower Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Bass/Wilson Hydropower Project will be
located on Wilson Stream, in the town of Wilton, Franklin County,
Maine.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b) (2012).
    h. Applicant Contact: Bass/Wilson Properties, LLC, 845 U.S. Route
2, Wilton, ME 04294; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Jennifer Polardino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions is: 30
days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission.
    Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(l)(iii) (2013)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the ``eFiling''
link. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-
filed. To paper-file, an original and eight copies should be mailed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. For more information on how to

submit these types of filings, please go to the Commission's Web site
located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp.
    Please include the docket number (DI14-07-000) on any comments,
protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The existing run-of-river Bass/Wilson
Hydroelectric Project will consist of the following existing
facilities: (1) A nine-foot-high dam at the outlet of Wilson Stream;
(2) an existing bulkhead, waste gate, canal, and a two-foot-high,
eight-foot-wide tailrace built prior to 1887; (3) a turbine room and
powerhouse constructed in 1904. The applicant proposes to install: (1)
A 78-kilowatt turbine generating unit for electrical production rated
at 18 feet of net head with an average flow of 65 cubic feet per
second; (2) an intake through a concrete wall on the upstream end of
the building in the current power canal; (3) a 36-inch to 48-inch
diameter fiberglass conduit in the existing raceway under the building;
(4) and appurtenant facilities. The power generated will be used on-
site and all excess power will be distributed via connection to the
interstate grid.
    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of
interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether
or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2)
would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3)
would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or
(4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has
Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after
1935.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the Docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--All filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
Motion to Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: November 20, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-28019 Filed 11-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50057-50059]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20279]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75676 ; File No. SR-BOX-2015-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule

August 12, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 6, 2015, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``BOX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to specify that
affiliated Exchange Participants (or ``Participants'') may request that
the Exchange aggregate its [sic] eligible activity with activity of the
Participant's affiliates for purposes of charges or credits based on
volume. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading on BOX
to specify that an Exchange Participant may request that the Exchange
aggregate their eligible activity with activity of affiliates for
purposes of charges or credits based on volume. The proposed rule
change is based on NYSE Arca, Inc.'s (``NYSE Arca'') Schedule of Fees
and Charges for Exchange Services, NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'')
Rule 7027, NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM'') Rules at Chapter XV, and
the NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Pricing Schedule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Effective March 18, 2015, NYSE Arca amended its Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services to specify that affiliated
Exchange ETP Holders may request that the Exchange aggregate its
eligible activity with activity of the ETP Holder's affiliates for
purposes of Charges or Credits based on volume. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 74604 (March 30, 2015), 80 FR 18270 (April
3, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-20). Effective December 1, 2014, NASDAQ
amended Rule 7027 to harmonize the treatment of aggregation of
affiliate activity of affiliated members to be consistent with the
rules governing NOM and PHLX. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 72966 (Sept. 3, 2014), 79 FR 53473 (Sept. 9, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-
2014-083). NOM and PHLX also amended their respective rules to
harmonize the process by which it collects information from its
members for purposes of aggregating member activity between its
equity and options markets. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos.
72967 (Sept. 2, 2014), 79 FR 53471 (Sept. 9, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-
082) and 72969 (Sept. 3, 2014), 79 FR 53485 (Sept. 9, 2014) (SR-
PHLX-2014-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, for purposes of applying any provision of the
Exchange's Fee Schedule where the charge assessed, or credit provided,
by the Exchange depends on the volume of a Participant's activity, a
Participant may request that the Exchange aggregate its eligible
activity with activity of affiliates.\4\ The Exchange further proposes
that a Participant requesting aggregation of eligible affiliate
activity would be required to (1) certify to the Exchange the affiliate
status of Participants whose activity it seeks to aggregate prior to
receiving approval for aggregation, and (2) inform the Exchange
immediately of any event that causes an entity to cease being an
affiliate. The Exchange would review available information regarding
the entities and reserves the right to request additional information
to verify the affiliate status of an entity. As further

proposed, the Exchange would approve a request, unless it determines
that the certificate is not accurate.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exhibit 5 for proposed language to be added to the Fee
Schedule. The Exchange notes that this language is similar to that
found in NYSE Arca's Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange
Services and NASDAQ Rule 7027.
    \5\ See NASDAQ Rule 7027(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes that if two or more Participants become
affiliated on or prior to the sixteenth day of a month, and submit the
required request for aggregation on or prior to the twenty-second day
of the month, an approval of the request would be deemed to be
effective as of the first day of that month. If two or more
Participants become affiliated after the sixteenth day of a month, or
submit a request for aggregation after the twenty-second day of the
month, an approval of the request by the Exchange would be deemed to be
effective as of the first day of the next calendar month. The Exchange
believes that this requirement is a fair and objective way to apply the
aggregation rule to fees and streamline the billing process.
    The Exchange further proposes to provide that for purposes of
applying any provision of the Fee Schedule where the charge assessed,
or credit provided, by the Exchange depends upon the volume of a
Participant's activity, references to an entity would be deemed to
include the entity and its affiliates that have been approved for
aggregation.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes that for purposes of the Fee
Schedule, the term ``affiliate'' of a Participant would mean any BOX
Participant under 75% common ownership or control of that
Participant.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers and because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, promote just and equitable principles
of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest. The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule
change is reasonable because it establishes a manner for the Exchange
to treat affiliated Participants for purposes of assessing charges or
credits that are based on volume. The provision is equitable because
all Participants seeking to aggregate their activity are subject to the
same parameters, in accordance with a standard that recognizes an
affiliation as of the month's beginning or close in time to when the
affiliation occurs, provided the Participant submits a timely request.
Moreover, the proposed billing aggregation language, which would lower
the Exchange's administrative burden, is substantially similar to
aggregation language adopted by other exchanges.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \9\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further notes that the proposal would serve to reduce
disparity of treatment between Participants with regard to the pricing
of different services and reduce any potential for confusion on how
activity can be aggregated. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change avoids disparate treatment of Participants that have
divided their various business activities between separate corporate
entities as compared to Participants that operate those business
activities within a single corporate entity. The Exchange further notes
that the proposed rule change is reasonable and is designed to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by
harmonizing the manner by which the Exchanges permits Participants to
aggregate volume with other exchanges. In particular, the Exchange
notes that NYSE Arca, NASDAQ, NOM, and PHLX all have a similar standard
that the Exchange is proposing to adopt.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\10\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As stated above,
the proposed rule change, which applies equally to all Participants, is
intended to reduce the Exchange's administrative burden in applying
volume price discounts for firms which have requested aggregation with
that of an affiliated Participant, and is substantially similar to
rules adopted by other exchanges. Because the market for order
execution and routing is extremely competitive, Participants may
readily opt to disfavor the Exchange if they believe that alternatives
offer them better value. The Exchange does not believe the proposed
changes will impair the ability of Participants or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received from Members, Participants or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \15\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-BOX-2015-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2015-28. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2015-28 and should be
submitted on or before September 8, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-20279 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P