[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27883-27888]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11292]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0347; FRL-9813-3]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Montana; Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
portions of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State
of Montana that are intended to demonstrate that its SIP meets certain
interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (``Act'' or
``CAA'') for the 2006 fine particulate matter (``PM2.5'')
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (``NAAQS''). This submission
addresses the requirement that Montana's SIP contain adequate
provisions to prohibit air emissions from adversely affecting another
state's air quality through interstate transport. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the portion of
the Montana SIP submission that addresses the CAA requirement
prohibiting emissions from Montana sources from significantly
contributing to nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any
other state or interfering with maintenance of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS by any other state. EPA is also proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove the portion of Montana's
submission that addresses the CAA requirement that SIPs contain
provisions to insure compliance with specific other CAA requirements
relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. The
partial disapprovals, if finalized, would not trigger an obligation for
EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address these
interstate transport requirements as EPA is determining that the
existing SIP is adequate to meet the specific CAA requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0347, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0347. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to the Clean Air Interstate
Rule
    (iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer to the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule
    (iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.

    (v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (vi) The initials MDEQ mean or refer to the Montana Department
of Environmental Quality.
    (vii) The words Montana and State mean the State of Montana.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
    A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport
    B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in the Eastern United States
    C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions to Address Interstate
Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
III. Montana's Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation
    A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors
    B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment
    C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance
    D. Evaluation of Montana's SIP With regard to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate Transport

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA identifies four distinct
elements related to the evaluation of impacts of interstate transport
of air pollutants. In this action for the state of Montana, EPA is
addressing the first two elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\1\ The first element of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires that each SIP for a new or revised
NAAQS contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other type
of emissions activity within the state from emitting air pollutants
that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in
another state. The second element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
requires that each SIP for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate
provisions to prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity
in the state from emitting pollutants that will ``interfere with
maintenance'' of the applicable NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This proposed action does not address the two elements of
the transport SIP provision (in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II))
regarding interference with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another
state. We will act on these elements in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is also addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate provisions to
insure compliance with the applicable requirements of sections 126 and
115 of the Act. Section 126 pertains to notification to nearby states
and petitions from states to EPA regarding interstate transport of
pollution. Section 115 pertains to international transport of
pollution.

B. EPA Rules Addressing Interstate Transport for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
in the Eastern United States

    EPA has addressed the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for many states in the eastern portion of the country in three
regulatory actions.\2\ Most recently, EPA published the final Cross
State Air Pollution Rule (``CSAPR'' or ``Transport Rule'') to address
the first two elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the Eastern
United States with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8,
2011, 76 FR 48208). CSAPR was intended to replace the earlier Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) which was judicially remanded.\3\ See North
Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 21, 2012, a
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a
decision to vacate the CSAPR. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The EME Homer City panel also
ordered EPA to continue implementing CAIR in the interim. On March 29,
2013, the United States asked the Supreme Court to review the EME Homer
City decision. In the mean time, and unless the EME Homer City decision
is reversed or otherwise modified, EPA intends to act in accordance
with the panel opinion in EME Homer City.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \3\ CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It did not address the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that Montana was not among the states
covered by CAIR and CSAPR and was outside of the modeling domain used
in the analysis for those rules. However, as explained in section IV of
this proposal, our methodology and analysis for evaluating Montana's
compliance with 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
is intended to be consistent with portions of the methodology in CSAPR
that were not called into question in the D.C. Circuit's decision, in
particular the methodology used to identify monitors in other states--
called ``receptors''--that are appropriate for assessing interstate
transport.

C. EPA Guidance for SIP Submissions To Address Interstate Transport for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a guidance memorandum that
provides recommendations to states for making SIP submissions to meet
the requirements of CAA section

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 standards (``2006
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance'' or ``Guidance'').\4\
With respect to the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
prohibit emissions that would contribute significantly to nonattainment
of the NAAQS in any other state, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance essentially reiterated the recommendations for
western states made by EPA in previous guidance addressing the
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance advised states outside of the CAIR region to
include in their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions an adequate
technical analysis to support their conclusions regarding interstate
pollution transport, e.g., information concerning emissions in the
state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially
impacted states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the
state and in potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest
areas not attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality
modeling.\6\ With respect to the requirement in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions that would interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state, the Guidance stated that
SIP submissions must address this independent and distinct requirement
of the statute and provide technical information appropriate to support
the State's conclusions, such as information concerning emissions in
the state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially
impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the state and in
potentially impacted states, and air quality modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
    \5\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,''
August 15, 2006, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/section110a2di_sip_guidance.pdf.
    \6\ The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance
stated that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR that would
address issues raised by the court in the North Carolina case and
that would provide guidance to states in addressing the requirements
related to interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. It also noted that states could
not rely on the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule
did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In assessing interstate transport of emissions from Montana, EPA
continues to consider relevant the types of information that were
suggested in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance.
Such information may include, but is not limited to, the amount of
emissions in the state relevant to the NAAQS in question, the
meteorological conditions in the area, the distance from the state to
the nearest monitors in other states that are appropriate receptors, or
such other information as may be probative to consider whether sources
in the state may contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
Modeling can be relied on when acceptable modeling technical analyses
are available, but EPA does not believe that modeling is necessarily
required if other available information is sufficient to evaluate the
presence or degree of interstate transport in a specific situation.

III. Montana's Submittal

    On February 10, 2010, the Montana Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ) made a submission certifying that Montana's SIP is
adequate to implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for all the
``infrastructure'' requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2). This
submission included a brief transport analysis to support the
conclusion that Montana's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for this NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ MDEQ's certification letter, dated February 10, 2010 is
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Montana's PM2.5 transport analysis relies almost solely
on EPA's decision not to model contribution from Montana to other
states for the CAIR. We do not consider this adequate analysis, in
large part because CAIR did not address the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.\8\ Moreover, as Montana was outside the modeling domains used in
developing CAIR and CSAPR, EPA did not model the impact of emissions
from Montana in the modeling done for either rule. EPA's decision in
CAIR and CSAPR to focus on transport among states in the eastern and
central portions of the U.S. did not constitute a determination that
SIPs for states outside the modeling domain (e.g. those in the Western
U.S.) were necessarily adequate to address interstate transport for the
1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As a result, western states such
as Montana that were not included in the modeling domains for the CAIR
and CSAPR rulemakings cannot rely on that modeling to demonstrate the
adequacy of their transport SIPs. Such states, if they chose to submit
transport SIPs for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, must conduct a
transport analysis that relies on relevant data and factors. MDEQ's
submission contains no technical analysis of potential interstate
transport or any other support for the State's conclusion that the
existing Montana SIP satisfies the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. MDEQ's
submission also failed to address how Montana's SIP is adequate to meet
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ CAIR addressed the 1997 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Evaluation

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
is satisfied, EPA first determines whether a state's emissions
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
in downwind areas. If a state is determined not to have such
contribution or interference, then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not
require any changes to that state's SIP. If, however, the evaluation
reveals that emissions from sources within the state do contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other
states, then the state must adopt substantive provisions to eliminate
those emissions. The state could achieve any required reductions
through traditional command and control programs, or at its own
election, through participation in a cap and trade program.
    Consistent with the first step of EPA's approach in the 1998
NOX SIP call, the 2005 CAIR, and the 2011 CSAPR, EPA is
evaluating impacts of emissions from Montana with respect to specific
monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or maintenance
problems, which we refer to as ``receptors.'' To evaluate these
impacts, and in the absence of relevant modeling of Montana emissions,
EPA is examining factors suggested by the 2006 Guidance such as
monitoring data, topography, and meteorology. EPA notes that no single
piece of information is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead,
the total weight of all the evidence taken together is used to evaluate
significant contributions to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another
state.
    As noted above, Montana's February 10, 2010 transport analysis
relies on factors irrelevant to the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, and lacks any technical analysis to support the State's
conclusion with respect to interstate transport. For these reasons, we
propose to partially disapprove the State's submission. However, we
also propose to partially approve the submission based on EPA's
supplemental evaluation of relevant technical information, which
supports a finding that emissions from Montana do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that the existing
Montana SIP is, therefore, adequate to meet the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Our supplemental evaluation considers several factors, including
identification of the monitors in other states that are appropriate
``nonattainment receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors,'' consistent
with EPA's approach in the CSAPR, and additional technical information
to evaluate whether emissions from Montana contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at these receptors.
    Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains a detailed evaluation
and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking, which may be
accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0347. Below, we provide a summary of our analysis.

A. Identification of Nonattainment and Maintenance Receptors

    EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three overlapping 3-
year periods (i.e., 2006-2008, 2007-2009, and 2008-2010) to determine
which areas were violating the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and which
areas might have difficulty maintaining the standard. If a monitoring
site measured a violation of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS during the
most recent 3-year period (2008-2010), then this monitor location was
evaluated for purposes of the significant contribution to nonattainment
element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). If, on the other hand, a
monitoring site shows attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
during the most recent 3-year period (2008-2010) but a violation in at
least one of the previous two 3-year periods (2006-2008 or 2007-2009),
then this monitor location was evaluated for purposes of the interfere
with maintenance element of the statute.
    This approach is similar to that used in the modeling done during
the development of CSAPR to identify the areas/receptors of concern
when evaluating interstate transport. Nothing in the EME Homer City
decision disturbs or undermines the validity of this approach to
identifying receptors. However, as noted above, CSAPR did not model
interstate transport of emissions from Montana to these receptors, so
we consider other technical information to make our evaluation.

B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    EPA reviewed technical information to evaluate the potential for
Montana emissions to contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in the
Western U.S.\9\ EPA first identified as ``nonattainment receptors'' all
monitoring sites in the western states that had recorded
PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the years 2008-2010.\10\
See Section III of our TSD for more a more detailed description of
EPA's methodology for selection of nonattainment receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA also considered potential PM2.5 transport
from Montana to the nearest nonattainment and maintenance receptors
located in the eastern, midwestern and southern states covered by
CSAPR and believes it is reasonable to conclude that, given the
significant distance from Montana to the nearest such receptor (in
Wisconsin) and the relatively insignificant amount of emissions from
Montana that could potentially be transported such a distance,
emissions from Montana sources do not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same factors also
support a finding that emissions from Montana sources neither
contribute significantly to nonattainment nor interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any
location further east. See TSD at Section I.B.3.
    \10\ Because CAIR did not cover states in the Western United
States, these data are not significantly impacted by the remanded
CAIR and thus could be considered in this analysis. In contrast,
recent air quality data in the eastern, midwestern and southern
states are significantly impacted by reductions associated with CAIR
and because CSAPR was developed to replace CAIR, EPA could not
consider reductions associated with the CAIR in the base case
transport analysis for those states. See 76 FR at 48223-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because geographic distance is a relevant factor in the assessment
of potential pollution transport, EPA first reviewed information
related to potential transport of PM2.5 pollution from
Montana to the nonattainment receptors in states bordering Montana,
both of which were in Idaho. As detailed in our TSD, the following
factors support a finding that emissions from Montana do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in Idaho: (1) Technical information, such as
data from monitors in the vicinity of the Idaho nonattainment
receptors, indicating that elevated PM2.5 levels are
predominantly caused by emissions from local sources; (2) topographical
considerations such as intervening mountain ranges; and 3)
meteorological considerations such as prevailing winds. While none of
these factors by itself would necessarily show non-contribution, when
taken together in a weight-of-evidence assessment they are sufficient
for EPA to determine that emissions from Montana do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment at the Idaho receptors.
    EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5 transport to
nonattainment receptors in the more distant western states of Oregon,
Washington, Utah, Nevada, and California. The following factors support
a finding that emissions from Montana do not significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any of
these states: (1) The significant distance from Montana to the
nonattainment receptors in these states; (2) technical information,
such as data from nearby monitors, indicating that elevated
PM2.5 levels at nonattainment receptors in these states are
predominantly caused by emissions from local sources; and (3) the
presence of intervening mountain ranges, which tend to impede pollution
transport.
    Based on our evaluation, we propose to conclude that emissions of
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources in
the State of Montana do not significantly contribute to nonattainment
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other state, that
the existing SIP for the State of Montana is adequate to satisfy the
``significant contribution'' requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards, and that the State of Montana therefore does not need to
adopt additional controls for purposes of implementing the
``significant contribution'' requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with
respect to that NAAQS at this time.

C. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance

    We also reviewed technical information to evaluate the potential
for Montana emissions to interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standards at specified monitoring sites in the Western
U.S. EPA first identified as ``maintenance receptors'' all monitoring
sites in the western states that had recorded PM2.5 design
values above the level of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35
[mu]g/m\3\) during the 2006-2008 and/or 2007-2009 periods but below
this standard during the 2008-2010 period. See section III of our

TSD for more information regarding EPA's methodology for selection of
maintenance receptors. All of the maintenance receptors in the western
states are located in California, Utah and Arizona. EPA therefore
evaluated the potential for transport of Montana emissions to the
maintenance receptors located in these states. As detailed in our TSD,
the following factors support a finding that emissions from Montana do
not interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in those states: (1) Technical information indicating that
elevated PM2.5 levels at these maintenance receptors are
predominantly caused by local emission sources; and (2) the significant
distance between Montana and these maintenance receptors.
    Based on this evaluation, EPA proposes to conclude that emissions
of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources
in the State of Montana do not interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other state, that the
existing SIP for the State of Montana is adequate to satisfy the
``interfere with maintenance'' requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that the State of Montana therefore does not
need to adopt additional controls for purposes of implementing the
``interfere with maintenance'' requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that NAAQS at this time.

D. Evaluation of Montana's SIP With Regard to CAA Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

    As stated, MDEQ's February 10, 2010 submission did not address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which requires that each
SIP shall contain adequate provisions insuring compliance with
applicable requirements of sections 126 and 115 (relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement). Because the State did not
address this element for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes
to partially disapprove this portion of Montana's submission. However,
we also propose to partially approve the submission based on our
evaluation which finds that Montana's existing SIP is sufficient to
meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii).
    Section 126(a) requires notification to affected, nearby states of
major proposed new (or modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and (c)
pertain to petitions by affected states to the Administrator regarding
sources violating the ``interstate transport'' provisions of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). Section 115 similarly pertains to international
transport of air pollution.
    As required by 40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iv), Montana's SIP-approved PSD
program requires notice to states whose lands may be affected by the
emissions of sources subject to PSD.\11\ This suffices to meet the
notice requirement of section 126(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Administrative Rule of Montana (``ARM'')
17.8.826(2)(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Montana has no pending obligations under sections 126(c) or 115(b);
therefore, its SIP currently meets the requirements of those sections.
In summary, the SIP meets the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) portions of Montana's February
10, 2010 submission. We propose to partially disapprove the
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of the submission because it relies on
irrelevant factors and lacks any technical analysis to support the
State's conclusion with respect to interstate transport. However, we
also propose to partially approve this portion of the submission based
on EPA's supplemental evaluation of relevant technical information,
which supports a finding that emissions from Montana do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state and that
the existing Montana SIP is, therefore, adequate to meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. We propose to conclude that any FIP obligation
resulting from finalization of the partial disapproval would be
satisfied by our determination that there is no deficiency in the SIP
to correct. Finalization of this proposed disapproval also would not
require any further action on Montana's part given EPA's conclusion
that the SIP is adequate to meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Similarly, EPA is proposing to partially disapprove the
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) portion of Montana's submission because it fails to
address or discuss this CAA requirement. However, we propose to
partially approve this portion of the submission based on the
conclusion that the State's existing SIP is adequate to meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. For similar reasons, the partial disapproval of
the submission for the 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requirement does not require
any further action from Montana or create any additional FIP obligation
for EPA.

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 (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is

not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
Organic Compounds.

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

    Dated: May 2, 2013.
Howard M. Cantor,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-11292 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 165 (Monday, August 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40686-40688]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0512; Product Identifier 2017-NM-031-AD; Amendment
39-19005; AD 2017-17-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of failures of the landing
gear alternate-extension system. This AD requires replacement of
certain nose landing gear and main landing gear electro-mechanical
actuators. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 2, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 2,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North
America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-
514-855-2999; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2017-0512.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0512; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.,
Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2017 (82 FR 25545) (``the
NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by reports of failures of the landing
gear alternate-extension system (AES). The NPRM proposed to require
replacement of certain nose landing gear and main landing gear electro-
mechanical actuators. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the
landing gear AES and consequent landing with some or all of the landing
gear not extended.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-08, dated February
22, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet
Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Malfunctions of the landing gear Alternate-Extension System
(AES) have been experienced. Failure of the landing gear AES could
prevent the landing gear from extending in the case of a failure of
the primary landing gear extension system.
    This [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate the replacement of the
[nose landing gear] NLG and [main landing gear] MLG [electro-
mechanical actuators] EMA [part numbers] P/Ns BA698-85006-1 and
BA698-85007-1.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0512.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047,
Revision A, dated December 5, 2016. The service information describes
procedures for replacing certain nose landing gear and main landing
gear electro-mechanical actuators. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 39 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost  per     Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost              Parts cost          product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement......................  4 work-hours x $85 per    Not available......            $340         $13,260
                                    hour = $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-17-15 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19005; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0512; Product Identifier 2017-NM-031-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 2, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional
Jet Series 1000) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial
numbers 19001 through 19039 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by failures of the landing gear alternate-
extension system (AES). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the landing gear AES and consequent landing with some or all of the
landing gear not extended.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Replacement

    Within 1,200 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace the nose landing gear
(NLG) and main landing gear (MLG) electro-mechanical actuators
(EMAs) having part numbers (P/Ns) BA698-85006-1 and BA698-85007-1
with P/Ns BA698-85006-3 and BA698-85007-3, as applicable, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047, Revision A, dated December 5, 2016
(``670BA-32-047, Revision A''). Where 670BA-32-047, Revision A,
instructs operators to contact Bombardier if it is not possible to
complete all the instructions in 670BA-32-047, Revision A, because
of the configuration of the airplane, this AD requires that any
deviation from the instructions provided in 670BA-32-047, Revision
A, must be approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
under the provisions of paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(h) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an
NLG or MLG EMA having P/N BA698-85006-1 or BA698-85007-1, on any
airplane.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047,
dated February 28, 2014.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-08, dated February
22, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0512.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-047, Revision A, dated
December 5, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center
North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial
telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 10, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17590 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69451-69453]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27255]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0328]

Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information
Collection: Beyond Compliance

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the information collection request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. The primary purpose of
the ICR is to obtain information from motor carriers, which will allow
FMCSA to study and to assess the effectiveness of various technologies,
programs, and policies on motor carrier safety performance in support
of the implementation of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act (FAST Act) Beyond Compliance requirements.

DATES: FMCSA must receive your comments on or before February 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0328 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Operations; 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: Docket Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see
the Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or

comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL 14--FDMS), which can be reviewed at
https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal website. If you want us to notify you
that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nicole Michel, Research Division,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: FMCSA requests OMB's review and approval of a new ICR
to implement the Beyond Compliance Program, required by section 5222 of
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L.
114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1540, Dec. 4, 2015) (49 U.S.C. 31100 note).
    The FAST Act requires FMCSA to allow recognition, including credit
or an improved Safety Measurement System (SMS) percentile, for motor
carriers that: (1) Install advanced safety equipment; (2) use enhanced
driver fitness measures; (3) adopt fleet safety management tools,
technologies, and programs; or (4) satisfy other standards determined
appropriate by the Administrator.
    The FAST Act also requires the FMCSA Administrator to carry out the
Beyond Compliance provisions through: (1) Incorporating a methodology
into the Compliance Safety Accountability (CSA) program; or (2)
establishing a safety Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category
(BASIC).
    FMCSA intends to meet the requirements of the FAST Act by: (1)
Developing a process for identifying elements of technology and safety
programs as a basis for recognition; (2) seeking input from
stakeholders; (3) using a third party for a monitoring program; and (4)
providing a report to Congress.
    The primary purpose of the ICR is to obtain information from motor
carriers, which will allow FMCSA to study and to assess the
effectiveness of various technologies, programs, and policies on motor
carrier safety performance in support of the implementation of the FAST
Act Beyond Compliance requirements. To accomplish this, the study will
complete the following three objectives:
    (1) Identify high-performing carriers in terms of safety
performance.
    (2) Determine the safety technologies, programs, and policies
employed by these carriers.
    (3) Gauge the relative effectiveness of those safety technologies,
programs, and policies based on the expert opinion and performance
metrics of the high performing carriers.
    The data being collected for this study consists of responses from
a select group of motor carriers on the most effective technologies,
programs, and policies for achieving safe operations. The study does
not attempt to conduct a full survey of the motor carrier population.
Instead, it relies on expert opinion from carriers that are objectively
determined to exhibit safe operations that exceed industry averages as
indicated by driver out-of-service rates, vehicle out-of-service rates,
and crash rates. To identify these carriers, the study will utilize
existing data from the Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS) database.
    FMCSA will collect data through an electronic survey of motor
carriers who have safety performance records that are better than
national averages. These carriers will be identified by examining
Department of Transportation-reportable crash rates, driver out-of-
service rates at roadside inspections, and vehicle out-of-service rates
at roadside inspections. Only those carriers that perform near the top
quartile (as determined by the selection criteria laid out below)
across all three carrier size categories (large, medium, and small) are
potential participants.
    Participants would be invited to participate in an online webinar
that explains the survey design (i.e., analytic hierarchy process, or
AHP). AHP is a tool for addressing complex decision-making that employs
a series of structured, pairwise comparisons in which respondents must
express a preference for one alternative over another according to
various evaluation criteria. Participants may not know how to proceed
through the pairwise comparisons. Instead of solely relying on written
instructions to explain to participants how to complete the survey, the
project team believes it would be useful to conduct an information
session via a webinar so an example can be provided and any questions
answered. The webinar would be conducted multiple times and
participants would be given the option to select the one that best
suits their schedules. In addition to the webinar, an online video
would be made available to participants that explains the AHP.
    Once participants complete the webinar, they will be given a link
to complete the survey online using an online survey tool such as
Survey Monkey or Qualtrics. In the context of the Beyond Compliance
ICR, the AHP-based survey would work by presenting motor carriers with
alternatives for what an ideal safety program looks like and allowing
them to systematically compare the major elements of these programs.
The survey results would then be analyzed to determine the safety
program elements that were most frequently scored the highest across
participants. The resulting information would reveal the elements of
safety programs that these motor carriers are using and their achieved
results. It would also reveal what these motor carriers believe to be
the most effective for achieving safety and should be included in a
Beyond Compliance program.
    Data collection will be completed within 90 days of the end of the
pilot program period and followed by a statistical analysis in 180
days. Both descriptive and analytical methods will be employed during
the data analysis. The results of the study will be documented in a
technical report that will be delivered to and maintained by FMCSA.
This report will be available to the public on the FMCSA website, at
www.fmcsa.dot.gov. The contents of the technical report will be
utilized in developing the report to Congress that FMCSA is required to
provide pursuant to section 5222 of the FAST Act.
    FMCSA is requesting a one-time collection of data for the Beyond
Compliance study. Currently, there is no existing data set that can be
used for this project. Not collecting this data would result in the
failure of FMCSA to fulfill the congressional mandate to develop a
Beyond Compliance program, as specified in section 5222 of the FAST

Act. The draft supporting statement for this information collection is
available in the docket.
    Title: Beyond Compliance.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-00XX.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Respondents: Motor carrier operational managers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 225 (estimated that 225 will
receive the survey with 112 fully completing the survey).
    Estimated Time per Response: Email Invitation: 5 minutes. Webinar:
10 minutes. Survey: 45 minutes. Email Reminder (first): 5 minutes.
Email Reminder (second): 5 minutes. Total time per response (estimated
113 that choose not to complete the survey): 10 minutes. Total time per
response (estimated 112 that fully complete the survey): 70 minutes.
    Expiration Date: This is a new ICR.
    Frequency of Response: Once.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 160 hours [225 email recipients x 15
minutes + 112 webinar respondents x 10 minutes + 112 survey respondents
x 45 minutes].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; (4) ways
that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the
collected information; and (5) whether the potential respondents should
be expanded to include carriers who have made significant safety
improvements and/or carriers who wish to participate in the study, and
if so, how should ``significant safety improvements'' be defined. The
Agency will summarize or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on: December 11, 2019.
Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2019-27255 Filed 12-17-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: June 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 125)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36435-36439]
[DOCID:fr27jn08-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130-200814; FRL-8684-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Florida;
Prevention of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve revisions
to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State
of Florida on February 3, 2006. The SIP revisions modify the Florida
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to address
changes to the federal new source review (NSR) regulations, which were
promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor
changes on November 7, 2003 (commonly referred to as the ``2002 NSR
Reform Rules''). In addition EPA is approving Florida's concurrent
February 3, 2006, request to make the State's PSD permitting program
applicable to electric power plants, which are also subject to the
Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (PPSA). EPA proposed
conditional approval of these revisions on April 4, 2008; no comments
were received on that proposal.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective July 28, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0130. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Florida
State Implementation Plan, contact Ms. Heidi LeSane, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. LeSane can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding New Source Review,
contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same address
above. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Adams can also be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background of EPA's action on the Florida PSD rule
revisions?
III. What is the background of EPA's action on Florida's PSD program
for electric power plants?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    NSR Reform Revisions. EPA is taking final action to conditionally
approve revisions to the Florida SIP (Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.) Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212) as submitted by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on February 3,
2006, which included changes to Florida's PSD program. As part of the
current conditional approval, Florida has agreed to (1) revise the
definition of ``new emissions unit'' to be consistent with the federal
definition or revise the definition to define what is meant by
``beginning normal operation'' and provide an equivalency demonstration
supporting the revised definition; (2) revise the definition of
``significant emissions rate'' to include ozone depleting substances;
(3)

withdraw the request that EPA include a significant emissions rate for
mercury in the Florida SIP, specifically F.A.C. Chapter 62-
210.200(243)(a)2; and (4) revise the recordkeeping requirements at
F.A.C. section 62-212.300(3)(a)1 to be consistent with federal
requirements found at 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6).
    Applicability of Florida's SIP-approved PSD permitting program to
electric power plants. In addition to and in conjunction with the
conditional approval of Florida's PSD SIP revisions, EPA is approving
Florida's concurrent February 3, 2006, request to make the State's PSD
permitting program applicable to electric power plants subject to the
Florida PPSA. This means that Florida's SIP-approved PSD permitting
program, including the conditional approval of the State's PSD
revisions noted above, will apply to electric power plants in Florida
in lieu of the current federally delegated PSD program.
    On April 4, 2008 (73 FR 18466), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register, proposing to conditionally
approve the Florida SIP revisions and proposing to approve Florida's
request to make the State's PSD program applicable to electric power
plants, which are also subject to the Florida PPSA. The April 4, 2008,
NPR provides additional information about the proposed Florida SIP
revisions and the rationale for this final action. The public comment
period for the proposed action ended on May 5, 2008. No comments were
received on EPA's proposed action. EPA is now taking final action to
conditionally approve the February 3, 2006, SIP revision from Florida
and to approve Florida's request to make the State's PSD permitting
program applicable to electric power plants subject to the Florida
PPSA.

II. What is the background of EPA's action on the Florida PSD rule
revisions?

    On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52,
regarding the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``Act'') PSD and nonattainment
new source review (NNSR) programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021),
EPA published a notice of final action on its reconsideration of the
December 31, 2002, final rule changes. In that November 7, 2003, final
action, EPA added the definition of ``replacement unit,'' and clarified
an issue regarding plant-wide applicability limitations. Collectively,
these EPA final actions are referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform
Rules.'' On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA took final action to
revise the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to exclude the clean units and PCP
provisions that were vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) on June 24, 2005.
Further, on December 21, 2007, EPA took final action on the portion of
the 2002 NSR Reform Rules remanded by the D.C. Circuit Court, regarding
the reasonable possibility in recordkeeping provision. The ``reasonable
possibility'' provision identifies, for sources and reviewing
authorities, the circumstances under which a major stationary source
undergoing a modification that does not trigger major NSR must keep
records. On December 21, 2007, EPA established that a ``reasonable
possibility'' exists where source emissions equal or exceed 50 percent
of the CAA NSR significance levels for any pollutant (72 FR 72607).
These changes became effective on January 22, 2008, and the final
action on that provision explains the process that states should follow
if a SIP revision is necessary.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Florida's regulations do not include the ``reasonable
possibility'' language. Florida's SIP revisions require all
modifications that use the actual-to-projected-actual methodology to
meet the recordkeeping requirements. Thus, with regard to the
reasonable possibility issue, Florida's rules are at least as
stringent as the current federal rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Florida SIP revisions being approved today revise Florida's PSD
program consistent with the federal program. In so doing, Florida not
only provided substantive revisions to its rules, but also reorganized
the rules to better follow the outline of the corresponding federal
rules. This reorganization does not have any substantive impact on the
PSD program as a whole, or its relationship with Florida's operating
permits program (CAA title V program). Florida's PSD program continues
to work in concert with its title V operating permit program to ensure
that applicable requirements, including any applicable PSD
requirements, are a part of lawful operation of a source under
Florida's title V program.
    The February 3, 2006, SIP submittal consists of revisions to the
following FDEP rules: F.A.C. Chapter 62-204, ``Air Pollution Control--
General Provisions;'' F.A.C. Chapter 62-210, ``Stationary Sources--
General Provisions;'' and F.A.C. Chapter 62-212, ``Stationary Sources--
Preconstruction Review.'' The revisions were made to update the Florida
PSD program to make it consistent with the December 31, 2002, changes
to the federal NSR program. EPA is conditionally approving the February
3, 2006, SIP submittal consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the CAA. As
part of the conditional approval, Florida will have twelve months from
the date of EPA's final conditional approval of the SIP revisions in
which to further revise its PSD rules, as described herein, to be
consistent with existing federal law.
    Pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally
approve a portion of a SIP revision based on a commitment from the
state to adopt specific, enforceable measures no later than twelve
months from the date of final conditional approval. If the state fails
to make the changes within the twelve month period, EPA will issue a
finding of disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of
disapproval. The necessary revisions to the Florida SIP will materially
alter the existing SIP-approved rule. As a result, Florida must also
provide a new SIP submittal to EPA for approval that includes the rule
changes. As with any SIP revision, Florida must provide an opportunity
for public notice and comment, and allow for a public hearing (and any
other procedures required by State law) on the proposed rule changes.
If Florida timely revises its rules and submits the revised SIP
submittal, EPA will process that SIP revision consistent with the CAA.
    With regard to the conditional approval of the PSD program, Florida
must: (1) Revise the definition of ``new emissions unit'' to be
consistent with the federal definition or revise the definition to
define what is meant by ``beginning normal operation'' and provide an
equivalency demonstration supporting the revised definition; (2) revise
the definition of ``significant emissions rate'' to include ozone
depleting substances; (3) withdraw the request that EPA include a
significant emissions rate for mercury in the Florida SIP, specifically
F.A.C. 62-210.200(243)(a)2; and (4) revise the recordkeeping
requirements at F.A.C. 62-212.300(3)(a)1 to require a record of the
amount of emissions excluded pursuant to the projected actual emissions
requirements, an explanation as to why these emissions were excluded,
and any netting calculations if applicable, consistent with the federal
recordkeeping requirements at 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6).
    The April 4, 2008, NPR and the docket for this action provide more
details about the SIP revisions being approved and the rationale for
EPA's final action. For additional information on EPA's 2002 NSR Reform
Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and http://www.epa.gov/nsr.

III. What is the background of EPA's action on Florida's PSD program
for electric power plants?

    Electric power plants subject to the Florida PPSA have historically
been permitted by FDEP (through a federal delegation of authority from
EPA) under the federal PSD program rather than the Florida SIP-approved
PSD permitting program. The Florida PSD program was initially approved
by EPA into the Florida SIP on December 22, 1983 (48 FR 52713). The
approval transferred to FDEP the legal authority to process and issue
PSD permits to sources in Florida that are required to obtain PSD
permits.
    One category of sources not covered by EPA's 1983 approval of
Florida's PSD program was electric power plants. This was because, at
the time, a separate Florida law known as the Florida PPSA, Florida
Statutes Section 403.501 et seq., required permits for electric power
plants to be issued solely by the Power Plant Site Certification Board
under the PPSA, rather than by FDEP under Florida's PSD regulations.
Such a conflict between the PPSA and Florida's PSD program created
impediments to implementation and enforcement of the State's PSD
program by FDEP for such power plants and precluded EPA's SIP-approval
of Florida's PSD program as to these sources. As a result, for electric
power plants subject to the PPSA, FDEP has been operating under either
a partial or full delegation of authority to implement the federal PSD
program since 1983, while various attempts to amend the PPSA to correct
the conflict were made. Currently, FDEP is operating under a full
delegation of authority to implement the federal PSD program for
electric power plants, following further amendments to the PPSA in
1993. The 1993 PPSA amendment made clear that FDEP is the final
permitting authority for PSD and new source review permits and can act
in a manner different from the PPSA Siting Board if Florida's PSD or
new source review regulations require such different action. The
statutory amendment to the PPSA made by the Florida Legislature in 1993
forms the basis of the State's 2006 request for EPA approval to make
Florida's SIP-approved State PSD program, rather than the federal PSD
program, applicable to sources subject to the PPSA. In addition, during
EPA's review of this request, the PPSA was again amended (on June 19,
2006), to among other things, further extricate Florida's PSD
permitting process from its PPSA process. See, Florida Public Health
Code 403.0872.
    Following EPA review of both the 1993 and June 19, 2006, amendments
to the PPSA, the Agency published a direct final rule on May 25, 2007,
finding that the PPSA amendments provided FDEP the authority to fully
implement and enforce Florida's PSD program for electric power plants
located within the State, and we granted it full approval to implement
the State's PSD program for electric power plants subject to the PPSA.
72 FR 29287 (May 25, 2007). However, because adverse comments on the
direct final rule were received, EPA withdrew the rule on June 28, 2007
(72 FR 35355) and indicated that the rule would not take effect.
    As is described in greater detail in the April 4, 2008, proposal,
the 1993 and June 2006 Florida legislative amendments to the State's
PPSA rectified past concerns that the Florida PPSA infringed on FDEP's
authority to issue State PSD permits to sources subject to both the
State's PSD regulations and the Florida PPSA in such a manner that SIP-
approval of the State's PSD program for those sources was precluded. By
proposing this SIP-approval through this new rulemaking process, and in
conjunction with our proposed action on the Florida PSD program SIP
revisions, we have addressed the main concerns raised by commenters in
response to our May 25, 2007, direct final rule. For additional
information on the concerns raised by commenters, see the April 4,
2008, proposal.
    EPA is now approving Florida's February 3, 2006, request that EPA
grant Florida SIP-approval to implement the State's PSD program for
electric power plants subject to the PPSA. EPA is approving this
specific request under section 110 of the Act because there is no
longer a conflict between the State's PSD regulations and the PPSA and
because FDEP now has adequate and effective procedures for full
implementation of the State's PSD program for electric power plants.
The April 4, 2008, NPR and the docket for this action provide more
details about the approval of Florida's PSD program for electric power
plants and the rationale for EPA's final action.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to conditionally approve changes to the
Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-204 entitled ``Air Pollution
Control--General Provisions''; Chapter 62-210 entitled ``Stationary
Sources--General Provisions''; and Chapter 62-212 entitled ``Stationary
Sources--Preconstruction Review,'' as submitted by the State of Florida
on February 3, 2006, as revisions to the Florida SIP.
    In addition to and in conjunction with the conditional approval of
Florida's PSD SIP revisions, EPA is taking final action to approve
Florida's concurrent February 3, 2006, request to make the State's PSD
permitting program applicable to electric power plants subject to the
Florida PPSA. As a result of this final action, EPA's October 26, 1993,
federal delegation of PSD authority to FDEP will be withdrawn effective
July 28, 2008. This final approval means that Florida's SIP-approved
PSD permitting program, including the final conditional approval of the
State's PSD revisions noted above, applies to electric power plants in
Florida in lieu of the current federally delegated PSD program.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 26, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 16, 2008.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.519 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.519  Identification of plan-conditional approval.

    EPA is conditionally approving a revision to the Florida State
Implementation Plan (SIP) consisting of revisions to Florida
Administrative Code Chapters 62-210 and 62-212. Based upon a commitment
from the State, Florida must (1) revise the definition of ``new
emissions unit'' to be consistent with the federal definition or revise
the definition to define what is meant by ``beginning normal
operation'' and provide an equivalency demonstration supporting the
revised definition; (2) revise the definition of ``significant
emissions rate'' to include ozone depleting substances; (3) withdraw
the request that EPA include a significant emissions rate for mercury
in the Florida SIP, specifically F.A.C. 62-210.200(243)(a)2; and (4)
revise the recordkeeping requirements at F.A.C. 62-212.300 to be
consistent with federal requirements. If the State fails to meet its
commitment by June 29, 2009, the approval is treated as a disapproval.

0
3. Section 52.520(c) is amended by:
0
a. Revising entries under Chapter 62-204 for ``62-204.200,'' and ``62-
204.260,'' under Chapter 62-210 for ``62-210.200,'' ``62-210.300,''
``62-210.350''and ``62-210.370,'' under Chapter 62-212 for ``62-
212.300,'' ``62-212.400,'' and ``62-212.500'' and
0
b. Adding in numerical order a new entry under Chapter 62-212 for ``62-
212.720'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Florida Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
         State citation              Title/subject     effective date    EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Chapter 62-204 Air Pollution Control--General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
62-204.200.....................  Definitions.........        02/12/06  06/27/08 [Insert
                                                                        citation of
                                                                        publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
62-204.260.....................  Prevention of               02/12/06  06/27/08 [Insert
                                  Significant                           citation of
                                  Deterioration                         publication].
                                  Maximum Allowable
                                  Increases (PSD
                                  Increments).

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Chapter 62-210 Stationary Sources--General Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
62-210.200.....................  Definitions.........        02/02/06  06/27/08 [Insert      Except for the
                                                                        citation of           following
                                                                        publication].         definitions which
                                                                                are being
                                                                                conditionally
                                                                                approved: (1)
                                                                                ``New emissions
                                                                                unit;'' and (2)
                                                                                ``significant
                                                                                emissions rate.''

                                                  * * * * * * *
62-210.300.....................  Permits Required....        02/02/06  06/27/08 [Insert
                                                                        citation of
                                                                        publication].
62-210.350.....................  Public Notice and           02/02/06  06/27/08 [Insert
                                  Comment.                              citation of
                                                                        publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
62-210.370.....................  Emissions                   02/02/06  06/27/08 [Insert
                                  Computation and                       citation of
                                  Reporting.                            publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Chapter 62-212 Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
62-212.300.....................  General                     02/02/06  06/27/08 [Insert      Except provisions
                                  Preconstruction                       citation of           at 62-
                                  Review Requirements.                  publication].         212.300(3)(a)1,
                                                                                which are being
                                                                                conditionally
                                                                                approved.
62-212.400.....................  Prevention of               02/02/06  06/27/08 [Insert
                                  Significant                           citation of
                                  Deterioration (PSD).                  publication].
62-212.500.....................  Preconstruction             02/02/06  06/27/08 [Insert
                                  Review for                            citation of
                                  Nonattainment Areas.                  publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
62-212.720.....................  Actuals Plantwide           02/02/06  06/27/08 [Insert
                                  Applicability                         citation of
                                  Limits (PALs).                        publication].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
4. Section 52.530 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.530  Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (a) EPA approves the Florida Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program, as incorporated into this chapter, for power
plants subject to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-14400 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P