stationary sources. This is because the terms ``source'' and
``account'' rely on the term ``site'' which does not contain the SIC
code limitation contained in the Federal definitions. Without this
limitation, the broad terms can encompass more than one major
stationary source. For example, a petroleum refiner (SIC code 2911) may
be collocated with a Plastic Materials and Resins manufacturer (SIC
code 2821) and be under common control and ownership, and neither
source is a support facility to the other. But, under the Major NSR
program, these two facilities would be considered separate major
stationary sources by virtue of a

difference in each facility's SIC irrespective of the fact that they
are located at the same ``site.'' Notably this is not the case for the
Title V and Section 112 programs. A single Title V permit can be issued
to the ``site.'' TCEQ asserts that an account includes multiple sources
and that the term ``source'' is limited to a discrete piece of
equipment or source of air contaminants. There is nothing in the
submitted Program's rules and definitions that limit the term
``account'' to one ``major stationary source'' much less to a discrete
piece of equipment. This submitted Program establishes an emissions cap
over a group of one or more emissions points located at an ``account''
site. 30 TAC 101.1(1). The Texas SIP defines an ``account'' to include
an entire company site, which could include more than one plant and
certainly more than one major stationary source. See the approved SIP
rule 30 TAC 101.1(1), second sentence. On its plain face, the term
``account'' cannot be interpreted to be limited to a single major
stationary source.
    Comment 2: BCCA, TCC, TIP and TAB, and TxOGA comment that the
definition of ``account'' is tied to the definition of ``site'' at 30
TAC 101.1(1) and (87). These commenters view this as limiting an
account to a specific plant site. Commenters also point to the Title V
rules as providing additional limitation. Citing 30 TAC 116.710(a)(1)
and (4), the commenters point out that only one Flexible Permit may be
issued at an account site and a Flexible Permit may not cover sources
at more than one account site. In summary, commenters conclude that if
these rules are read together they provide sufficient safeguards
against a major stationary source netting a significant emissions
increase against a decrease occurring outside a site using a Flexible
Permit. TAB comments if a Flexible Permit could be obtained for more
than one site, the only reasonable construction of the rule would be
``* * * a facility, group of facilities, account or accounts * * *''
but the rule is not so constructed because it does not extend a
Flexible Permit to more than one site.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the comment. Concerning the comment
that an account is limited to a site and that the submitted Flexible
Permit Program limits only one Flexible Permit at an account does not
address our concern that an account may include more than one major
stationary source. See the section III.D.1 (response to comment 1) and
74 FR 48480, at 48489 for further information. The commenter's reliance
on the Title V rules does not identify a specific provision in the
Texas Title V program that supports the commenter's position.
    Furthermore, the reliance on the Title V program as providing
additional limitation for limiting an account to a major stationary
source does not address this matter. The Title V program is an
operating permit program that incorporates the applicable requirements
of the CAA (including the requirements of the approved SIP) into the
operating permit. See 40 CFR 70.2--definition of ``applicable
requirement'' and 70.6(a)(1). The Title V Program generally does not
create applicable requirements independently of the applicable
requirements in the approved SIP and other requirements of the CAA.
Public Citizen v. EPA, 343 F.3d 449, 453 (5th Cir. 2003) (``Title V
permits do not impose additional requirements on sources but, to
facilitate compliance, consolidate all applicable requirements in a
single document. See 42 U.S.C. 7661a(a); see also Virginia v. Browner,
80 F.3d 869, 873 (4th Cir.1996) (Title V permit ``is a source-specific
bible for [CAA] compliance''), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1090, 117 S.Ct.
764, 136 L.Ed.2d 711 (1997).''); Sierra Club v. Georgia Power Co., 443
F.3d 1346, 1348 (11th Cir. 2006) (Title V ``generally does not impose
new substantive air quality control requirements.'')
    In summary, for the reasons stated above, the definition of
``account'' is not limited to a single major stationary source and may
include multiple major stationary sources, or in other circumstances,
may include a subset of a major stationary source.

F. Public Participation

    Comment 1: TCC comments that any future changes in the public
participation aspects of the Flexible Permit program should apply
prospectively and have no effect on the existing permits.
    Response: EPA cannot comment on what actions it will take regarding
any future changes in the public participation aspects of the Flexible
Permit Program and therefore defers responding because those changes
are outside the scope of the present rulemaking. We wish to note,
however, existing Flexible Permits were not issued under the Texas NSR
SIP, and any future Flexible Permits also will not be issued under the
Texas NSR SIP.
    Comment 2: The Clinic comments that the CAA and its implementing
regulations include minimal requirements for public participation in
permitting. This includes, for Major and Minor NSR permits and
modifications, the requirements under 40 CFR 51.161 and for PSD
permits, additional requirements as provided under 40 CFR 51.166(q).
Texas public participation rules for Flexible Permits in 30 TAC Chapter
39 require 30-days public notice and comment on initial issuance of
Flexible Permits and amendments to a Flexible Permit if the action
involves construction of a new facility or meets certain criteria,
including modifications resulting in allowable emissions increases of
250 tons per year of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides or 25 tons per
year of other pollutants. See 30 TAC 39.403(b). This restriction is
inconsistent with Federal requirements for both Major and Minor NSR.
The commenters further object to the use of alterations and permits by
rule to change Flexible Permit terms and conditions; such changes
should be made through permit amendment with at least 30-days public
notice and comment.
    Response: In the proposal, EPA proposed to disapprove 30 TAC
116.740 because this submitted rule relates to the public participation
requirements of the submitted Flexible Permit Program, and is not
severable from the Program. Because we are disapproving the Flexible
Permit Program, we are likewise disapproving the inseverable provisions
in 30 TAC 116.740, Public Notice, for the Program. See 74 FR 40480, at
48491 and 48493.
    The comments relating to the provisions in 30 TAC Chapter 39, the
use of permit alterations and Permits by Rule in lieu of permit
amendment with at least 30-days public notice and comment are outside
the scope of this action.
    Comment 3: GCLC provided comments on Texas's submitted public
participation program that it is robust and fully compliant with
Federal requirements and in fact exceeds Federal requirements. GCLC
comments that even parties not residing in the State may comment on an
air permit application and TCEQ is obligated to respond whereas under
Federal requirements only affected persons are allowed to comment and
trigger a response obligation. GCLC asserts that the ``public meeting''
component of the State program is equivalent to the ``public hearing''
component of the Federal program. GCLC comments that the trial-type
contested hearing process in the Texas program goes well beyond the
Federal requirements which permit only interested parties to
participate during the notice and comment period.
    Response: We recognize that our proposal included a brief
discussion of how the submitted Flexible Permit Program requires
compliance with provisions in Chapter 39 of the Texas

Administrative Code. On November 26, 2008, EPA proposed limited
approval/limited disapproval of the Texas submittals relating to public
participation for air permits of new and modified facilities (73 FR
72001). In our November 26, 2008, proposal of the Texas Public
Participation rules, we proposed no action on 30 TAC 116.740 and stated
that we would address that section in a separate action. See 73 FR
72001, at 72015. In our proposal of the Texas Flexible Permits Program,
we proposed to disapprove 30 TAC 116.740 because this submitted rule
relates to the public participation requirements of the submitted
Flexible Permit Program, and is not severable from the Program. Because
we are disapproving the Flexible Permit Program, we are likewise
disapproving the inseverable provisions in 30 TAC 116.740, Public
Notice, for the Program. See 74 FR 40480, at 48491 and 48493.

IV. What are the Grounds for This Disapproval Action of the Texas
Flexible Permits State Program?

    EPA is disapproving revisions to the SIP submitted by the State of
Texas that relate to the Flexible Permits State Program, identified in
the above Tables 1 and 2. Sources are reminded that they remain subject
to the requirements of the federally approved Texas SIP and may be
subject to enforcement actions for violations of the SIP. See EPA's
Revised Guidance on Enforcement during Pending SIP Revisions, (March 1,
1991). You can access this document at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/
resources/policies/civil/caa/stationary/enf-siprev-rpt.pdf. However,
this final disapproval action does not affect Federal enforceability of
Major and Minor NSR SIP permits.
    The provisions affected by this disapproval action include
regulatory provisions at 30 TAC 116.110(a)(3), 116.710, 116.711,
116.714, 116.715, 116.716, 116.717, 116.718, 116.720, 116.721, 116.722,
116.730, 116.740, 116.750, and 116.760; and definitions at 30 TAC
116.10(11)(F), and 30 TAC 116.13 under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Control of
Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification. EPA
finds that these submitted provisions and definitions in the submittals
affecting the Texas Flexible Permits State Program are not severable
from each other. Specifically, EPA is making the following findings and
taking the following actions as described below:

A. The Texas Flexible Permits Program is Unclear Whether It is for a
Major or Minor NSR SIP Revision

    Several commenters claim that the submitted Program is clear that
every project for which a Flexible Permit is issued must also comply
with Major NSR requirements, and therefore was not intended to be a
Major NSR SIP revision. Other commenters disagree and say the rules are
not clear on their face that the Program requires compliance with the
Major NSR requirements. The latter commenters agree with EPA's analysis
of the submitted Program in the proposal and comment that we correctly
stated that we were required to review the submittal as a substitute
for a Major NSR program because the submittal is not clearly limited to
minor sources and minor modifications. TCEQ states that the Flexible
Permit Program was not intended to be a substitute for the Major NSR
permitting requirements but that it understands EPA's concerns with
ambiguity regarding the applicability of the submitted Program, that
this is not specifically stated in the submitted Program's regulations.
Furthermore, the TCEQ commits to revise its rules to make it clear that
the Program is limited to Minor NSR.
    The submitted Program is analogous to two other Minor NSR programs
(Standard Permits and Permits by Rule) in Texas's SIP because they too
provide a different permit option for facilities. In particular, these
programs exempt facilities from obtaining a source-specific (i.e.,
case-by case) permit. Unlike the submitted Program, however, the SIP
rules for Standard Permits and Permits by Rule include an applicability
statement and a regulatory provision that expressly limits
applicability to minor sources and minor modifications. The Standard
Permits rules explicitly require a Major NSR applicability
determination at 30 TAC 116.610(b), and prohibit circumvention of Major
NSR at 30 TAC 116.610(c). Likewise, the Permits by Rule provisions
explicitly require a Major NSR applicability determination at 30 TAC
106.4(a)(3), and prohibit circumvention of Major NSR at 30 TAC
106.4(b). In each, the State specifically expressed its intention to
require a Major NSR applicability determination and prohibit
circumvention of Major NSR. The absence of a similar Major NSR
applicability determination requirement and a similar regulatory
prohibition for circumvention of the Major NSR SIP permitting
requirements in the submitted Flexible Permits Program creates
unacceptable ambiguity. The commenters opposing our proposed action
fail to provide an explanation of why the TCEQ did not write the
submitted Flexible Permit rules with the same provisions as the Texas
Minor NSR Permits by Rule and Standard Permit SIP rules. A clear
intention to limit the submitted Program to minor sources and minor
modifications would have resulted in a similar structure to the Texas
Minor NSR Permits by Rule and Standard Permit SIP rules. The State,
however, did not include such provision in the submitted Flexible
Permits Program. See 74 FR 48480, at 48487, and section III.B (response
to comment 1) for further information.

B. The Texas Flexible Permits Program is Not Approvable as a Substitute
Major NSR SIP Revision

    Because of the State's disavowal of any intent to have this SIP
revision submittal treated as a substitute for a Major NSR SIP program,
it did not submit a demonstration as required by 40 CFR
51.165(a)(2)(ii) and 51.166(a)(7)(iv) to show that its Program was as
stringent as the EPA Major NSR SIP program requirements. It also did
not explain how the submitted Program is consistent with the Act's
requirements for a Major NSR SIP revision. As discussed at 74 FR 38480,
at 48487, and in section III.B (response to comments 1 and 2), section
III.C.1 (responses to comments 1 and 2), and section III.C.3 (responses
to comments 1 and 2) of this notice, the State did not structure the
submitted Program in a similar fashion as the Texas Minor Standard
Permits and Permits by Rule NSR SIP programs. This lack of a similar
regulatory structure creates the ambiguities whether the submitted
Program is truly limited to Minor NSR and whether it prohibits the
circumvention of the Federal Major NSR SIP requirements. Without the
required demonstration and with the ambiguities, EPA is disapproving
the Program as not meeting the Major NSR SIP requirements that require
the Major NSR applicability requirements be met and that prevent
circumvention of Major NSR. See 74 FR 48480, at 48488, section III.B
(response to comment 1) and section III.C.1 of this notice for further
information.
    Some commenters assert that the submitted Program meets the netting
criteria for a Major NSR SIP revision. Others argue differently. Under
the submitted Program, not all emission points, units, facilities,
major stationary sources, minor modifications to an existing major
stationary source, and so forth, at a site are required to be included
in the site's Flexible Permit.

The submitted Program allows an emission cap to be established under a
Flexible Permit account to include multiple major stationary sources
and allow a major stationary source to net a significant emissions
increase against a decrease occurring outside the major stationary
source, from facilities on the account's site, and, in other
circumstances, allowing an evaluation of emissions of a subset of units
at a major stationary source. As a result, the regulated community may
apply these regulations inconsistently and in a way that fails to
evaluate emissions changes at the entire major stationary source
correctly as required by the Major NSR SIP regulations. See section
III.E (responses to comments 1 and 2) for further information.
    Therefore, the submitted Program does not meet the CAA's definition
of ``modification'' and the Major NSR SIP requirements and is
inconsistent with Alabama Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 401-403 (D.C.
Cir. 1980) and Asarco v. EPA, 578 F.2d 320 (D.C. Cir.1978). The
submitted Program does not meet the Major NSR SIP requirements for
netting. Second, the Program authorizes existing allowable emissions,
rather than actual emissions, to be used as a baseline to determine
applicability. Therefore, this use of allowables is inconsistent with
the requirements of the Act for Major NSR and is contrary to New York
v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 38-40 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (``New York I''). See 74 FR
48480, at 48489-48490, and section III.C.2 (response to comment 2) for
further information.
    Several commenters claim that the submitted Program requires the
retention of the conditions of an existing PSD or Nonattainment NSR
permit and that the TCEQ is required under the submitted Program to
carry forward such terms and conditions in a Flexible Permit. On the
other hand, there was a comment that the submitted Program contains no
such requirement and that TCEQ regularly voids existing Nonattainment
and PSD NSR permits when it issues a Flexible Permit. The submitted
Flexible Permit Program is not clear and explicit that Flexible Permits
cannot be used to eliminate or amend existing Nonattainment and PSD NSR
SIP permit terms and conditions. There are not sufficient provisions in
the submitted Program requiring the holder of a Flexible Permit to
maintain recordkeeping sufficient to ensure that all terms and
conditions of pre-existing permits (including representations in the
applications for such permits) that are incorporated into the Flexible
Permit continue to be met. The submitted Program lacks adequate program
requirements for the tracking of existing SIP permits' Major NSR terms,
limits and conditions, and whether such requirements are incorporated
into a Flexible Permit or they remain outside the coverage of the
Flexible Permit. The submitted Program is ambiguous and can be
interpreted to allow holders of a Flexible Permit to make de facto
amendments of existing SIP permits, including changes in the terms and
conditions (such as throughput, fuel type, hours of operation) of Major
NSR permits, without a preconstruction review by Texas. See section
III.C.5 for further information.
    Therefore, the submitted Program does not require the retention of
the conditions of Major NSR SIP permits upon the issuance of a Flexible
Permit, as is required for a Major NSR SIP revision.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2)(ii) and 51.166(a)(7)(iv), where a
State submits a revision to its Major NSR SIP that differs from the
Federal Major NSR base program SIP requirements, the State has an
affirmative obligation to explain how the submitted program satisfies
the CAA and to demonstrate why the submitted program is in fact at
least as stringent as the Major NSR SIP requirements of the Federal
base program. It is not EPA's obligation to surmise how the submitted
program might work and if it may under certain circumstances be more or
less stringent than the Federal Major NSR SIP base program. The State
did not submit such a demonstration because it did not view the
submitted Program as a substitute for a Major NSR SIP revision.
    Without the required customized Major NSR demonstration, the lack
of a replicable methodology for the establishment of the emissions cap,
the provision allowing director discretion in deciding whether or not
to include a MRR condition in a Flexible Permit, the lack of sufficient
MRR requirements, and the lack of enforceability, EPA lacks sufficient
information to make a finding that the submitted Flexible Permits
Program will prevent interference with NAAQS attainment and RFP or
violations of any State control strategy that is required by the Texas
NSR SIP, or any other applicable CAA requirement. See 74 FR 48480, at
48492, section III.D.3, and section III.A (response to comment 6) for
further information.
    Therefore, the Program does not meet the requirements of the Act
and EPA regulations for a substitute Major NSR SIP.
    In summary, EPA is disapproving the submitted Flexible Permits
Program as not meeting the Major NSR SIP requirements.

C. The Texas Flexible Permits Program Is Not Approvable as a Minor NSR
SIP Revision

    Several commenters claim the Texas Flexible Permit Program
explicitly requires permit holders to comply with the Federal Major NSR
rules. In contrast, another commenter says that the submitted Program
does not include adequate provisions for ensuring that changes that
should trigger Major NSR are subject to technology and air quality
analysis requirements. Commenters assert that the submitted Program
prohibits circumvention of Major NSR. Another commenter notes to the
contrary. We evaluated the submitted Program under CAA section
110(a)(2)(C), which requires each State to include a Minor NSR program
in its SIP. EPA regulations implementing the Act require that a plan
include ``legally enforceable procedures that enable'' the permitting
agency to determine whether a minor source will cause or contribute to
violations of applicable portions of the control strategy (see 40 CFR
51.160(a)(1)), or ``interference with a national ambient air quality
standard,'' (see 40 CFR 51.160(a)(2)), and to prevent the source from
doing so (see 40 CFR 51.160(b)). There is, however, no express
provision in the submitted Flexible Permit Program rules that prohibits
its use for Major NSR. There is no express regulatory provision in the
submitted Program requiring that it cannot be used to circumvent the
requirements of Major NSR. There are no regulatory provisions clearly
prohibiting circumvention of Major NSR. See 74 FR 48480, at 48486, and
section III.D.1 for further information.
    Therefore, EPA is disapproving the submitted Program as a Minor NSR
SIP revision because it is not clearly limited to Minor NSR and it does
not prevent circumvention of the Major NSR SIP requirements.
    Several commenters state that the submitted Program does contain
comprehensive and stringent provisions for MRR or assert that there is
a wide array of additional Texas rules specifying MRR requirements. A
commenter notes that there is significant difference in the types of
sources that apply for a Flexible Permit; therefore, requiring one
comprehensive rule could severely limit TCEQ's ability to implement
adequately these requirements. In contrast, another commenter notes
that the submitted Program does not contain adequate MRR requirements
to assure compliance with the emission limits in Flexible Permits.

On the other hand, TCEQ admits the submitted Program does not specify
special conditions that ensure recordkeeping, reporting, testing, and
reporting to assure compliance with the Flexible Permit.
    The submitted Program is an intricate and complex program and
therefore, for approvability as a Major NSR SIP revision, there is a
greater need for detailed MRR requirements whether to ensure that a
project triggering the Major NSR SIP requirements is covered under
Major NSR or to ensure that there are adequate means for ensuring
compliance of each affected source under both Major and Minor NSR.
These are needed to make the submitted Program enforceable and to
ensure that the issuance of the Flexible Permits does not cause or
contribute to a NAAQS violation, the Texas control strategy, or violate
any other CAA requirement. The submitted Flexible Permit Program is
generic concerning the types of monitoring that is required rather than
identifying the employment of specific monitoring approaches, providing
the technical specifications for each of the specific allowable
monitoring systems, and requiring replicable procedures for the
approval of any alternative monitoring system. It also lacks the
replicable procedures that are necessary to ensure that (1) adequate
monitoring is required that would accurately determine emissions under
the Flexible Permit cap, (2) the Program is based upon sound science
and meets generally acceptable scientific procedures for data quality
and manipulation; and (3) the information generated by such system
meets minimum legal requirements for admissibility in a judicial
proceeding to enforce the Flexible Permit.
    The submitted Program therefore lacks provisions explicitly
addressing the type of MRR requirements that are necessary to ensure
that all of the movement of emissions between the emission points,
units, facilities, plants, etc., still meet the cap for the pollutant,
still meet the individual emissions limitations, and still meet any
other applicable State or Federal requirement. The commenters'
assertion that there are additional MRR SIP requirements applicable to
the submitted Program is incorrect; there are no such additional
applicable MRR SIP requirements. Moreover, the submitted Program leaves
it to the director's discretion to require a MRR condition in a
Flexible Permit. See 74 FR 48480, at 48490, and section III.C.5
(response to comment), III.D.3 (response to comments 4, 5, and 9), and
section III.A (response to comment 6) for further information.
    Without specialized MRR requirements in the submitted Program, it
is difficult for EPA or the public to determine which units are covered
by a Flexible Permit, which modifications to non-covered units are
covered by a Flexible Permit, whether a covered unit is subject to the
emission cap or an individual emission limitation, whether a unit is
subject to both the cap and a limitation, or whether a cap or a
limitation applies and at what time. See 74 FR 48480, at 48492, and
section III.D.3 for further information. Accordingly, the submitted
Program lacks requirements necessary for enforcement and assurance of
compliance. There are no specific up-front methodologies in the Program
to be able to determine compliance. It fails to meet the enforceability
requirements as a program or by a holder of a Flexible Permit, and it
cannot assure compliance with the Program or of the affected source.
    Several commenters state that the submitted Program does contain
comprehensive and stringent provisions for MRR or assert that there is
a wide array of additional Texas rules specifying MRR requirements. A
commenter notes that there is significant difference in the types of
sources that apply for a Flexible Permit; therefore, requiring one
comprehensive rule could severely limit TCEQ's ability to implement
adequately these requirements. In contrast, another commenter notes
that the submitted Program does not contain adequate MRR requirements
to assure compliance with the emission limits in Flexible Permits.
    First, the commenters point to no other specific SIP rules that
apply to Flexible Permits and are detailed MRR requirements. Although
the submitted Program requires the same MRR requirements at 30 TAC
116.711(2) and 116.715(c)(4)-(6), as do the SIP rules codified in
Subchapter B of Chapter 116, the underpinnings of the submitted Program
are so complex that even for a Minor NSR SIP program, there should be
more detailed MRR requirements to ensure that the emission cap and/or
individual emissions limitations in the issued Flexible Permits are
enforceable. See 74 FR 48480, at 48492, and section III.D.3 for further
information. Secondly, the submitted Flexible Permit Program is complex
and intricate and therefore, for approvability as a NSR SIP revision,
there is a greater need for detailed MRR requirements whether to ensure
that a project triggering the Major NSR SIP requirements is covered
under Major NSR or to ensure that there are adequate means for ensuring
compliance of each affected entity under both Major and Minor NSR. See
74 FR 48480, at 48490, section III.A (response to comment 6), and
section III.D.3 (response to comment 2) for further information.
    Moreover without specialized MRR requirements in the submitted
Program, it is difficult for EPA or the public to determine which units
are covered by a Flexible Permit, which modifications to non-covered
units are covered by a Flexible Permit, whether a covered unit is
subject to the emission cap or an individual emission limitation,
whether a unit is subject to both the cap and a limitation, or whether
a cap or a limitation applies and when it applies. See 74 FR 48480, at
48492, and section III.D.3 of this notice for further information.
Accordingly, the Program lacks requirements necessary for enforcement
and assurance of compliance. There are no specific up-front
methodologies in the Program to be able to determine compliance. It
fails to meet the enforceability requirements as a program or for a
holder of a Flexible Permit, and it cannot assure compliance with the
Program or by the holder of a Flexible Permit.
    Therefore, the submitted Program is not enforceable, as required by
section 110(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Act for a Minor NSR SIP revision, and
it fails to prohibit the issuance of a Flexible Permit that could
interfere with attainment of a NAAQS or violate a control strategy.
Because of its lack of enforceability, EPA lacks sufficient information
to make a finding that the Flexible Permits Program is adequate to
ensure that no construction and changes authorized under the Program
will prevent interference with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS
or violations of any State control strategy that is required by the
Texas NSR SIP. See 74 FR 48480, at 48492, and section III.D.3 for
further information.
    Several commenters claim that the submitted Program requires the
retention of the conditions of an existing PSD or Nonattainment NSR
permit and that the TCEQ is required under the submitted Program to
carry forward such terms and conditions in a Flexible Permit. On the
other hand, there was a comment that the submitted Program contains no
such requirement and that TCEQ regularly voids existing Nonattainment
and PSD NSR permits when it issues a Flexible Permit. The submitted
Flexible Permit Program is not clear and explicit that Flexible Permits
cannot be used to eliminate or amend existing Nonattainment and PSD NSR
SIP permit terms and conditions. The regulatory structure of the
submitted Program does not ensure that existing Major NSR SIP permits'
terms

and conditions are retained. It lacks legally enforceable procedures to
ensure that both the permit application and the State's permitting
processes (i.e., the State's review, supporting technical information,
the public notice and comment process, the record, and most importantly
the structuring of each Flexible Permit) clearly identify each covered
point of emissions; which existing Minor NSR permits and their types
(e.g., Minor NSR SIP permit, Minor NSR SIP standard permit, Minor NSR
SIP permit by rule); and which of their permitted terms, limits,
conditions and representations in the permit application, are moved
into the Flexible Permit. The regulatory structure of the submitted
Program also is not clear which existing permits and their types and
terms, limits, conditions and representations in the permit
application, are not being moved into the Flexible Permit. Finally,
there are not sufficient provisions in the submitted Program requiring
the holder of a Flexible Permit to maintain recordkeeping sufficient to
ensure that all terms and conditions of existing permits (including
representations in the applications for such permits) that are
incorporated into the Flexible Permit continue to be met. The submitted
Program lacks adequate program requirements for the tracking of
existing SIP permits' Major and Minor NSR terms, limits and conditions,
and whether or not such requirements are incorporated into a Flexible
Permit. Minor and Major NSR permits, as well as Minor NSR SIP Permits
by Rule and Standard Permits, can be incorporated into a Flexible
Permit without any program requirement in place that ensures the SIP
permits' terms and conditions are included in the Flexible Permit. The
submitted Program also allows holders of a Flexible Permit to make de
facto amendments of existing SIP permits, including changes in the
terms and conditions (such as throughput, fuel type, hours of
operation) of Minor and Major NSR permits, without a preconstruction
review by Texas. See section III.C.5 and section III.D.3 (response to
comment 10) for further information.
    Therefore, the submitted Program does not require the retention of
the conditions of Major NSR SIP permits upon the issuance of a Flexible
Permit, as is required for a Minor NSR SIP revision and allows for
revision of existing permits without adequate public notice and comment
as required by 40 CFR 51.160-161.
    Several commenters claim that the submitted Program does contain an
established and replicable method for determining an established
emissions cap; others claim differently. The submitted Program does not
describe in sufficient detail the calculation methodologies and
underlying technical analyses used to determine a cap. It lacks
specific, established, replicable procedures in the submitted
regulations providing available means to determine independently, and
for different scenarios, how the State will calculate a Flexible
Permit's cap and/or individual emissions limitations for a company's
site, plants on the site, major stationary sources on the site, a
facility within a major stationary source on the site, facilities on
the site, a group of units on the site, for one pollutant but not
another, etc. The process also is not clear for how the emission cap is
adjusted for the addition of new facilities. See 74 FR 48480, at 48491
and section III.D.2 for additional information.
    Therefore, the submitted Program lacks replicable procedures for
the establishment of the emissions cap, as is required for a Minor NSR
SIP revision.
    The submitted Program provides an alternative permit option but
there is not sufficient information to determine whether this
alternative is as stringent as the existing Texas Minor NSR SIP.
Consequently, the submitted Program could create a risk of interference
with NAAQS attainment, RFP, or any other requirement of the Act.
Additionally, the legal test for whether an alternative Minor NSR
permit approach can be approved is whether it is consistent with the
need for a plan to include legally enforceable procedures to ensure
that the State will not permit a source that will violate the control
strategy or interfere with NAAQS attainment, as required by 40 CFR
51.160(a)-(b). 74 FR 48480, at 48491. Therefore, we are disapproving
the submitted Flexible Permits Program as a Minor NSR SIP revision
because it does not meet sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(1) of the Act
and 40 CFR 51.160. Without a replicable methodology for establishing
the emission caps, the provision allowing director discretion whether
or not to include a MRR condition in a Flexible Permit, the lack of
sufficient MRR requirements and the lack of enforceability of the
submitted Program, EPA lacks sufficient information to make a finding
that the submitted Program, as a Minor NSR SIP program, will ensure
protection of the NAAQS, and noninterference with the Texas SIP control
strategies and RFP. See 74 FR 48480, at 48492, and section III.A
(response to comment 6) for further information.
    Based upon the above, overall, the submitted Program fails to
include sufficient legally enforceable safeguards to ensure that the
NAAQS and control strategies are protected. Therefore, EPA is
disapproving the Program for not meeting the requirements for a Minor
NSR SIP revision.

D. The Texas Flexible Permits Program Does Not Meet the NSR Public
Participation Requirements

    A commenter stated that any future changes in public participation
aspects of the Flexible Permit Program should apply prospectively and
should have no effect on existing permits. Another commenter stated
that the submitted Program lacks the minimum public participation in 40
CFR 51.161 for a NSR SIP submittal and for a PSD SIP submittal, the
public participation requirements in 40 CFR 51.166(q). Another
commenter asserts that the submitted public participation program is
robust and fully compliant with Federal requirements and in fact
exceeds Federal requirements because of its broader scope and trial-
type contested hearings process.
    The submitted rule is not severable from the Program because it
relates to the public participation requirements of the submitted
Program. We are disapproving the Texas Flexible Permits State Program,
and we are disapproving the submitted 30 TAC 116.740, because this
submitted rule for public participation is not severable from the
submitted Program. See 74 FR 48480, at 48490 and 48493 and section
III.F for further information.

E. Definition of ``Account''

    TCEQ does not agree with EPA's understanding of the term
``account'' as applied by TCEQ. It further states that it has
integrated and translated the many Federal definitions of the
``source'' in an attempt to maintain consistent terminology between
State and Federal programs. TCEQ comments that its definition of an
``account'' references the term ``source'' as defined in Texas law.
According to TCEQ, within this rule, it interprets ``sources'' as being
equivalent to multiple ``facilities'' (a discrete piece of equipment or
source of air contaminants) under Texas Minor Source definitions. TCEQ
further commented that a Flexible Permit cannot cover more than one
major stationary source, as the term is used by EPA and TCEQ for
Federal NSR purposes. See comment 1 under section III.E. To be
approvable, a Flexible Permit cannot cover more than one major
stationary source, as the term is used by EPA and TCEQ for Federal NSR

purposes. Other commenters note that the definition of ``account'' is
tied to the definition of ``site'' at 30 TAC 101.1(1) and (87). This,
in their view limits an account to a specific plant site. These
commenters also point to the Title V rules as providing additional
limitation. Citing 30 TAC 116.710(a)(1) and (4), these commenters point
out that only one Flexible Permit may be issued at an account site and
a Flexible Permit may not cover sources at more than one account site.
In summary, these commenters conclude that if these rules are read
together they provide sufficient safeguards against a major stationary
source netting a significant emissions increase against a decrease
occurring outside a site using a Flexible Permit. Another commenter
comments if a Flexible Permit could be obtained for more than one site,
the only reasonable construction of the rule would be ``* * * a
facility, group of facilities, account or account * * *'' but the rule
is not so constructed because it does not extend a Flexible Permit to
more than one site. After considering these comments EPA observes that
that an account could include an entire company site, which could
include multiple major stationary sources, the submitted SIP revisions
may allow a major stationary source to net a significant emissions
increase against a decrease occurring outside the stationary source
from facilities on the account site that are covered under a Flexible
Permit. An account may also allow an emission increase to be determined
based on an evaluation of a subset of facilities within a major
stationary source. See section III.E (response to comment 1) above and
74 FR 48480, at 48489 for further information. The commenter's reliance
on the Title V rules does not identify a specific provision in the
Texas Title V program that supports the commenter's position.
    In summary, for the reasons stated above, the definition of
``account'' is not clearly limited to a single major stationary source
and may include multiple major stationary sources, or in other
circumstances, may include a subset of a major stationary source. The
submitted Program is not approvable because it does not include legally
enforceable procedures for ensuring that both the permit application
and the State's permitting processes (i.e., the State's review,
supporting technical information, the public notice and comment
process, the record, and most importantly the structuring of each
Flexible Permit in such a manner as to be clear) will clearly inform
the public, other governmental agencies, or a court, which facilities
are included under the permit and cap, and which are included under the
permit but subject to individual limitations. See 74 FR 48480, at 48485
and section III.E for further information.

V. Final Action

    EPA is disapproving the Texas Flexible Permits State Program
submitted in a series of SIP revisions, identified in the Tables in
section II of this preamble. These affected provisions are addressed in
Texas' November 29, 1994 SIP revision submittal, as revised by
severable portions in the March 13, 1996, SIP revision submittal, and
severable portions of the July 22, 1998 SIP revision submittal that
repealed and replaced portions of, as well as revised, the 1994
submittal and repealed and replaced all of the 1996 submittal; and as
revised by severable portions in the October 25, 1999, September 11,
2000, April 12, 2001, September 4, 2002, October 4, 2002, and September
25, 2003, SIP revision submittals.
    EPA is disapproving the submitted Texas Flexible Permits State
Program as a Minor NSR SIP revision because it does not meet the Act
and EPA's regulations and is not consistent with applicable statutory
and regulatory requirements as interpreted in EPA guidance and policy.
We also are disapproving the submitted Texas Flexible Permits State
Program as a substitute Major NSR SIP revision, because it does not
meet the Act and EPA's regulations and is not consistent with
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements as interpreted in EPA
guidance and policy.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This final action has been determined not to be a ``significant
regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D
of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b). Because this final action does not impose an information
collection burden, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. This rule will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals
and disapprovals under section 110 and part D of the Clean Air Act do
not create any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove
requirements that the States are already imposing.
    Furthermore, as explained in this action, the submissions do not
meet the requirements of the Act and EPA cannot approve the
submissions. The final disapproval will not affect any existing State
requirements applicable to small entities in the State of Texas.
Federal disapproval of a State submittal does not affect its State
enforceability. After considering the economic impacts of today's
rulemaking on small entities, and because the Federal SIP disapproval
does not create any new requirements or impact a substantial number of
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover,
due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air
Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air
Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42
7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 ``for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector.'' EPA has determined that the disapproval action does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action determines
that pre-existing requirements under State or local law should not be
approved as part of the Federally approved SIP. It imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.''
``Policies that have Federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is disapproving would not 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. This final rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. This action does not involve or impose
any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an
economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety
risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but
simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the
SIP.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. Today's action does not require
the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, (February 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve or disapprove State choices, based on the criteria of the Clean
Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act and will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by September 13, 2010. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 30, 2010.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

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. 7410 et seq.

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. Section 52.2273 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2273  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA is disapproving the Texas SIP revision submittals under 30
TAC Chapter 116--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New
Construction or Modification as follows:
    (1) The following provisions under 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter
A--Definitions:
    (i) Portion of the definition of ``modification of existing
facility'' in 30 TAC 116.10(11)(F), submitted March 13, 1996; repealed
and readopted June 17, 1998 and submitted July 22, 1998; adopted August
9, 2000 and submitted September 11, 2000; and revised August 21, 2002
and submitted September 4, 2002;
    (ii) 30 TAC 116.13--Flexible Permit Definitions, adopted November
16, 1994 and submitted November 29, 1994; repealed and readopted June
17, 1998 and submitted July 22, 1998;
    (2) The following provision in 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter B--
New Source Review Permits, Division 1--Permit Application: 30 TAC
116.110(a)(3)--Applicability, adopted November 16, 1994 and submitted
November 29, 1994; repealed and readopted June 17, 1998 and submitted
July 22, 1998;
    (3) The following sections in 40 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter G--
Flexible Permits:
    (i) 30 TAC 116.710--Applicability--adopted November 16, 1994 and
submitted November 29, 1994; revised June 17, 1998 and submitted July
22, 1998; and adopted August 9, 2000 and September 11, 2000;
    (ii) 30 TAC 116.711--Flexible Permit Application--adopted November
16, 1994 and submitted November 29, 1994; revised June 17, 1998 and
submitted July 22, 1998; revised March 7, 2001 and submitted April 12,
2001; and revised August 21, 2002 and submitted September 4, 2002;
    (iii) 30 TAC 116.714--Application Review Schedule--adopted November
16, 1994 and submitted November 29, 1994, and revised June 17, 1998 and
submitted July 22, 1998;
    (iv) 30 TAC 116.715--General and Special Conditions--adopted
November 16, 1994 and submitted November 29, 1994; revised June 17,
1998 and submitted July 22, 1998; adopted August 9, 2000 and submitted
September 11, 2000; revised March 7, 2001 and submitted April 12, 2001;
revised August 21, 2002 and submitted September 4, 2002; and revised
August 20, 2003 and submitted September 25, 2003;
    (v) 30 TAC 116.716--Emission Caps and Individual Limitations--
adopted November 16, 1994 and submitted November 29, 1994;
    (vi) 30 TAC 116.717--Implementation Schedule for Additional
Controls--adopted November 16, 1994 and submitted November 29, 1994;
    (vii) 30 TAC 116.718--Significant Emission Increase--adopted
November 16, 1994 and submitted November 29, 1994;
    (viii) 30 TAC 116.720--Limitation on Physical and Operational
Changes--adopted November 16, 1994 and submitted November 29, 1994;
    (ix) 30 TAC 116.721--Amendments and Alterations--adopted November
16, 1994 and submitted November 29, 1994; revised June 17, 1998 and
submitted July 22, 1998; and revision adopted August 9, 2000 and
submitted September 11, 2000;
    (x) 30 TAC 116.722--Distance Limitations--adopted November 16, 1994
and submitted November 29, 1994; and revision adopted August 9, 2000
and submitted September 11, 2000;
    (xi) 30 TAC 116.730--Compliance History--adopted November 16, 1994
and submitted November 29, 1994; and revised June 17, 1998 and
submitted July 22, 1998;
    (xii) 30 TAC 116.740--Public Notice and Comment--adopted November
16, 1994 and submitted November 29, 1994; revised June 17, 1998 and
submitted July 22, 1998; and revision adopted September 2, 1999 and
submitted October 25, 1999;
    (xiii) 30 TAC 116.750--Flexible Permit Fee--adopted November 16,
1994 and submitted November 29, 1994; revised June 17, 1998 and
submitted July 22, 1998; adopted August 9, 2000 and submitted September
11, 2000; and revision adopted September 25, 2002 and submitted October
4, 2002;
    (xiv) 30 TAC 116.760--Flexible Permit Renewal--adopted November 16,
1994 and submitted November 29, 1994.
[FR Doc. 2010-16776 Filed 7-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28565-28566]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002: Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8485]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

DATES:  The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.
    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6   [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Effective date
                                                   authorization/                           Date certain Federal
      State and location        Community No.   cancellation of sale    Current effective       assistance no
                                               of flood insurance in        map date         longer available in
                                                     community                                      SFHAs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Region VIII
Montana: Carbon County,                300139  March 23, 1978,        July 5, 2017........  July 5, 2017.
 Unincorporated Areas.                          Emerg; November 4,
                                                1981, Reg; July 5,
                                                2017, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* -do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: June 14, 2017.
Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-12991 Filed 6-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8121-8122]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2566-004; ER10-1760-004.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Carolina Power & Light
Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status filing of Duke Energy
Carolinas, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-736-001.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation submits tariff filing
per 35.17(b): Correction to LGIA No. 1145 between National Grid and AG
Energy to be effective 6/8/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-739-000; ER13-739-001.
    Applicants: Texpo Power, LP.
    Description: Texpo Power, LP submits second supplemental submission
to the January 10 and 23, 2013 filings.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-740-000; ER13-740-001.
    Applicants: EnerPenn USA LLC.
    Description: EnerPenn USA LLC submits second supplemental
submission to the January 10 and 23, 2013 filings.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-814-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation-Original SA No. 2858 in Dkt No.
ER11-3515-000 to be effective 12/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-815-000.
    Applicants: Tiverton Power Inc.
    Description: Tiverton Power Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Notice of Succession to be effective 1/18/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-816-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Original Service Agreement No. 3480; Queue No. W1-107
to be effective 1/3/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-817-000.
    Applicants: MATL LLP.
    Description: MATL LLP submits tariff filing per 35.1: MATL Enbridge
Baseline Filing to be effective 1/29/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-818-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation submits tariff filing
per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Cost Reimbursement Agreement No. 1951 NYPA/NiMo
re: mv trnsmssn fclts to be effective 11/9/2012.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-819-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Revised Added Facilities Rate for Tie-Line
Agreements to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-820-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Revisions to Attachment AO--Agreement Establishing
External Generation to be effective 3/30/2013.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA12-4-000.
    Applicants: Spring Canyon Energy LLC, Judith Gap Energy LLC,
Invenergy TN LLC, Wolverine Creek Energy LLC, Grays Harbor Energy LLC,
Forward Energy LLC, Willow Creek Energy LLC, Sheldon Energy LLC, Hardee
Power Partners Limited, Spindle Hill Energy LLC, Invenergy Cannon Falls
LLC, Beech Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy LLC, Grand Ridge Energy
II LLC, Grand Ridge Energy III LLC, Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC, Grand
Ridge Energy V LLC, Vantage Wind Energy LLC, Stony Creek Energy LLC,
Gratiot County Wind LLC, Gratiot County Wind II LLC, Bishop Hill Energy
LLC, Bishop Hill Energy III LLC and California Ridge Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Generation Site Report Fourth Quarter 2012 of Spring
Canyon Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: LA12-4-000.
    Applicants: Iberdrola Renewables, LLC, Atlantic Renewable Projects
II LLC, Barton Windpower LLC, Big Horn Wind Project LLC, Big Horn II
Wind Project LLC, Blue Creek Wind Farm LLC, Buffalo Ridge I LLC,
Buffalo Ridge II LLC, Casselman Windpower LLC, Colorado Green Holdings
LLC, Dillon Wind LLC, Dry Lake Wind Power, LLC, Dry Lake Wind Power II
LLC, Elk River Windfarm, LLC, Elm Creek Wind, LLC, Elm Creek Wind II
LLC, Farmers City Wind, LLC, Flat Rock Windpower LLC, Flat Rock
Windpower II LLC, Flying Cloud Power Partners, LLC, Groton Wind, LLC,
Hardscrabble Wind Power LLC, Hay Canyon Wind LLC, Juniper Canyon Wind
Power LLC, Klamath

Energy LLC, Klamath Generation LLC, Klondike Wind Power LLC, Klondike
Wind Power II LLC, Klondike Wind Power III LLC, Leaning Juniper Wind
Power II LLC, Lempster Wind, LLC, Locust Ridge Wind Farm, LLC, Locust
Ridge II, LLC, Manzana Wind LLC, MinnDakota Wind LLC, Moraine Wind LLC,
Moraine Wind II LLC, Mountain View Power Partners III, LLC, New England
Wind, LLC, New Harvest Wind Project LLC, Northern Iowa Windpower II
LLC, Pebble Springs Wind LLC, Providence Heights Wind, LLC, Rugby Wind
LLC, San Luis Solar LLC, Shiloh I Wind Project, LLC, South Chestnut
LLC, Star Point Wind Project LLC, Streator-Cayuga Ridge Wind Power LLC,
Trimont Wind I LLC, Twin Buttes Wind LLC.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Iberdrola
Renewables, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: LA12-4-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc., Alabama Power Company,
Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company,
Southern Power Company.
    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of Southern Company
Services, Inc.
    Filed Date: 1/29/13.
    Accession Number: 20130129-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 29, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02496 Filed 2-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P