[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68285-68291]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28010]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0697-201044; FRL-9222-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a draft revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by Alabama, through the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), to EPA on August 17,
2010, for parallel processing. The proposed SIP revision modifies
Alabama's New Source Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. Specifically, the proposed SIP revision
establishes appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new
stationary sources and modification projects become subject to
Alabama's PSD permitting requirements for their greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Alabama's August 17, 2010, SIP revision is necessary because
without it, on January 2, 2011, PSD requirements would apply at the 100
or 250 tons per year (tpy) levels provided under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act), which would overwhelm Alabama's permitting resources. EPA is
proposing approval of Alabama's August 17, 2010, SIP revision relating
to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources because the Agency has
made the preliminary determination that this SIP revision is in
accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting
for GHGs.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2010-0697 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0697, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0697.'' 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 through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in 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 Alabama
SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, 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. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404)
562-9352; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding the Tailoring Rule, contact Ms. Heather Abrams, Air Permits
Section, at the same address above. Ms. Abrams' telephone number is
(404) 562-9185; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?
II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in today's
notice?
III. What is the relationship between today's proposed action and
EPA's proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's proposed SIP revision?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing in today's notice?

    On August 17, 2010, ADEM submitted a draft revision to EPA for
approval into the Alabama SIP to establish appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary sources
become subject to Alabama's PSD permitting requirements for GHG
emissions. Final approval of Alabama's August 17, 2010, SIP revision
will put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set
forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), ensuring
that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not
be subject to permitting requirements when these requirements begin
applying to GHGs on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to section 110 of the
CAA, EPA is proposing to approve this revision into the Alabama SIP.
    Because this draft SIP revision is not yet state-effective, Alabama
requested that EPA ``parallel process'' the SIP revision. Under this
procedure, the EPA Regional Office works closely with the state while
developing new or revised regulations. Generally, the state submits a
copy of the proposed regulation or other revisions to EPA before
conducting its public hearing. EPA reviews this proposed state action
and prepares a notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA publishes this notice
of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and solicits public
comment in approximately the same time frame during which the state is
holding its public hearing. The state and EPA thus provide for public
comment periods on both the state and the Federal actions in parallel.
    After Alabama submits the formal state-effective SIP revision
request (including a response to all public comments raised during the
state's public participation process), EPA will prepare a final
rulemaking notice for the SIP revision. If changes are made to the SIP
revision after EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking, such changes must
be acknowledged in EPA's final rulemaking action. If the changes are
significant, then EPA may be obliged to re-propose the action. In
addition, if the changes render the SIP revision not approvable, EPA's
re-proposal of the action would be a disapproval of the revision.

II. What is the background for the action proposed by EPA in today's
notice?

    Today's proposed action on the Alabama SIP relates to EPA's
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule,'' Final Rule (the Tailoring Rule). 75 FR 31514. In the
Tailoring Rule, EPA established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for
determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources. These applicability thresholds were designed to ensure that
smaller GHG sources will not be subject to GHG permitting requirements.
While Alabama already has authority to issue PSD permits governing GHGs
when PSD requirements begin applying to GHGs on January 2, 2011,
Alabama needs to amend its SIP to incorporate the Tailoring Rule's
applicability thresholds. Today's notice announces EPA's proposed
approval of a revision to Alabama's SIP that would put these
applicability thresholds in place.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On September 2, 2010, EPA proposed a ``SIP Call'' that would
require those states with SIPs that do not authorize PSD permitting
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. 75 FR
53892. In a companion rulemaking, EPA proposed a Federal
implementation plan (FIP) that would apply in any state that is
unable to submit the required SIP revision by its deadline. 75 FR
53883 (September 2, 2010). Because Alabama's SIP already authorizes
Alabama to regulate GHGs once GHGs become subject to PSD
requirements on January 2, 2011, Alabama is not subject to the
proposed SIP Call or FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is a brief overview of GHGs and GHG-emitting sources, the CAA
PSD program, minimum SIP elements for a PSD program, and EPA's recent
actions regarding GHG permitting. Following this section, EPA
discusses, in sections III and IV, the relationship between the
proposed Alabama SIP revision and EPA's other national rulemakings as
well as EPA's analysis of Alabama's SIP revision.

A. What are GHGs and their sources?

    A detailed explanation of GHGs, climate change and the impact on
health, society, and the environment is included in EPA's technical
support document for EPA's GHG endangerment finding final rule
(Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0472-11292 at http://www.regulations.gov). The endangerment finding rulemaking is

discussed later in this rulemaking. A summary of the nature and sources
of GHGs is provided below.
    GHGs trap the Earth's heat that would otherwise escape from the
atmosphere into space and form the greenhouse effect that helps keep
the Earth warm enough for life. GHGs are naturally present in the
atmosphere and are also emitted by human activities. Human activities
are intensifying the naturally occurring greenhouse effect by
increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, which is changing the
climate in a way that endangers human health, society, and the natural
environment.
    Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), are emitted to
the atmosphere through natural processes as well as human activities.
Other gases, such as fluorinated gases, are created and emitted solely
through human activities. The well-mixed GHGs of concern directly
emitted by human activities include CO2, methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), hereafter referred to collectively as ``the six well-
mixed GHG,'' or, simply, GHGs. Together these six well-mixed GHGs
constitute the ``air pollutant'' upon which the GHG thresholds in EPA's
Tailoring Rule are based. These six gases remain in the atmosphere for
decades to centuries where they become well-mixed globally in the
atmosphere. When they are emitted more quickly than natural processes
can remove them from the atmosphere, their concentrations increase,
thus increasing the greenhouse effect.
    In the U.S., the combustion of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas)
is the largest source of CO2 emissions and accounts for 80
percent of the total GHG emissions by mass. Anthropogenic
CO2 emissions released from a variety of sources, including
through the use of fossil fuel combustion and cement production from
geologically stored carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) that is
hundreds of millions of years old, as well as anthropogenic
CO2 emissions from land-use changes such as deforestation,
perturb the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and the
distribution of carbon within different reservoirs readjusts. More than
half of the energy-related emissions come from large stationary sources
such as power plants, while about a third come from transportation. Of
the six well-mixed GHGs, four (CO2, CH4,
N2O, and HFCs) are emitted by motor vehicles. In the U.S.,
industrial processes (such as the production of cement, steel, and
aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other land use, and waste management
are also important sources of GHGs.
    Different GHGs have different heat-trapping capacities. The concept
of Global Warming Potential (GWP) was developed to compare the heat-
trapping capacity and atmospheric lifetime of one GHG to another. The
definition of a GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped
by one unit mass of the GHG to that of one unit mass of CO2
over a specified time period. When quantities of the different GHGs are
multiplied by their GWPs, the different GHGs can be summed and compared
on a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) basis. For example,
CH4 has a GWP of 21, meaning each ton of CH4
emissions would have 21 times as much impact on global warming over a
100-year time horizon as 1 ton of CO2 emissions. Thus, on
the basis of heat-trapping capability, 1 ton of CH4 would
equal 21 tons of CO2e. The GWPs of the non-CO2
GHG range from 21 (for CH4) up to 23,900 (for
SF6). Aggregating all GHG on a CO2e basis at the
source level allows a facility to evaluate its total GHG emissions
contribution based on a single metric.

B. What are the general requirements of the PSD program?

1. Overview of the PSD Program
    The PSD program is a preconstruction review and permitting program
applicable to new major stationary sources and major modifications at
existing stationary sources. The PSD program applies in areas that are
designated ``attainment'' or ``unclassifiable'' for a national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS). The PSD program is contained in part C of
title I of the CAA. The ``nonattainment NSR'' program applies in areas
not in attainment of a NAAQS or in the Ozone Transport Region, and it
is implemented under the requirements of part D of title I of the CAA.
Collectively, EPA commonly refers to these two programs as the major
NSR program. The governing EPA rules are contained in 40 CFR 51.165,
51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, Appendices S and W. There is no
NAAQS for CO2 or any of the other well-mixed GHGs, nor has
EPA proposed any such NAAQS; therefore, unless and until EPA takes
further such action, the nonattainment NSR program does not apply to
GHGs.
    The applicability of PSD to a particular source must be determined
in advance of construction or modification and is pollutant-specific.
The primary criterion in determining PSD applicability is whether the
proposed project is sufficiently large (in terms of its emissions) to
be a major stationary source or modification, both of which are
described below. EPA has implemented these requirements in its
regulations, which use somewhat different terminology than the CAA
does, for determining PSD applicability.
a. Major Stationary Sources
    Under PSD, a ``major stationary source'' is any source belonging to
a specified list of 28 source categories that emits or has the
potential to emit 100 tpy or more of any air pollutant subject to
regulation under the CAA, or any other source type that emits or has
the potential to emit such pollutants in amounts equal to or greater
than 250 tpy. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1). We refer to these levels
as the 100/250-tpy thresholds. A new source with a potential to emit
(PTE) at or above the applicable ``major stationary source threshold''
is subject to major NSR. These limits originate from section 169 of the
CAA, which applies PSD to any ``major emitting facility'' and defines
the term to include any source that emits or has a PTE of 100 or 250
tpy, depending on the source category. Note that the major source
definition incorporates the phrase ``subject to regulation,'' which, as
described later, will begin to include GHGs on January 2, 2011, under
our interpretation of that phrase as discussed in the recent memorandum
entitled, '' EPA's Interpretation of Regulations that Determine
Pollutants Covered by Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Permit Program.'' 75 FR 17004 (April 2, 2010).
b. Major Modifications
    PSD also applies to existing sources that undertake a ``major
modification,'' which occurs when: (1) There is a physical change in,
or change in the method of operation of, a ``major stationary source;''
(2) the change results in a ``significant'' emissions increase of a
pollutant subject to regulation (equal to or above the significance
level that EPA has set for the pollutant in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)); and
(3) there is a ``significant net emissions increase'' of a pollutant
subject to regulation that is equal to or above the significance level
(defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)). Significance levels, which EPA has
promulgated for criteria pollutants and certain other pollutants,
represent a de minimis contribution to air quality problems. When EPA
has not set a significance level for a regulated NSR pollutant, PSD
applies to an increase of the pollutant in any amount (that is, in
effect, the significance level is treated as zero).

2. General Requirements for PSD
    This section provides a very brief summary of the main requirements
of the PSD program. One principal requirement is that a new major
source or major modification must apply best available control
technology (BACT), which is determined on a case-by-case basis taking
into account, among other factors, the cost effectiveness of the
control and energy and environmental impacts. EPA has developed a
``top-down'' approach for BACT review, which involves a decision
process that includes identification of all available control
technologies, elimination of technically infeasible options, ranking of
remaining options by control and cost effectiveness, and then selection
of BACT. Under PSD, once a source is determined to be major for any
regulated NSR pollutant, a BACT review is performed for each attainment
pollutant that exceeds its PSD significance level as part of new
construction or for modification projects at the source, where there is
a significant increase and a significant net emissions increase of such
pollutant.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA notes that the PSD program has historically operated in
this fashion for all pollutants--when new sources or modifications
are ``major,'' PSD applies to all pollutants that are emitted in
significant quantities from the source or project. This rule does
not alter that for sources or modifications that are major due to
their GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to performing BACT, the source must analyze impacts on
ambient air quality to assure that sources do not cause or contribute
to violation of any NAAQS or PSD increments and must analyze impacts on
soil, vegetation, and visibility. In addition, sources or modifications
that would impact Class I areas (e.g., national parks) may be subject
to additional requirements to protect air quality related values
(AQRVs) that have been identified for such areas. Under PSD, if a
source's proposed project impacts a Class I area, the Federal Land
Manager is notified and is responsible for evaluating a source's
projected impact on the AQRVs and recommending either approval or
disapproval of the source's permit application based on anticipated
impacts. There are currently no NAAQS or PSD increments established for
GHGs, and therefore these PSD requirements would not apply for GHGs,
even when PSD is triggered for GHGs. However, if PSD is triggered for a
GHG-emitting source, all regulated NSR pollutants that the new source
emits in significant amounts would be subject to PSD requirements.
Therefore, if a facility triggers NSR for non-GHG pollutants for which
there are established NAAQS or increments, the air quality, additional
impacts, and Class I requirements would apply to those pollutants.
    Pursuant to existing PSD requirements, the permitting authority
must provide notice of its preliminary decision on a source's
application for a PSD permit and must provide an opportunity for
comment by the public, industry, and other interested persons. After
considering and responding to comments, the permitting authority must
issue a final determination on the construction permit. Usually NSR
permits are issued by a state or local air pollution control agency
that has its own authority to issue PSD permits under a permit program
that has been approved by EPA for inclusion in its SIP. In some areas,
EPA has delegated its authority to issue PSD permits under Federal
regulations to the state or local agency. In other areas, EPA issues
the permits under its own authority.

C. What are the CAA requirements to include the PSD program in the SIP?

    The CAA contemplates that the PSD program be implemented in the
first instance by the states and requires that states include PSD
requirements in their SIPs. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that--

    Each implementation plan * * * shall * * * include a program to
provide for * * * regulation of the modification and construction of
any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as
necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are
achieved, including a permit program as required in part[ ] C * * *
of this subchapter.

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that--

    Each implementation plan * * * shall * * * meet the applicable
requirements of * * * part C of this subchapter (relating to
significant deterioration of air quality and visibility protection).

    CAA section 161 provides that--

    [E]ach applicable implementation plan shall contain emission
limitations and such other measures as may be necessary, as
determined under regulations promulgated under this part [C], to
prevent significant deterioration of air quality in each region * *
* designated * * * as attainment or unclassifiable.

    These provisions, read in conjunction with the PSD applicability
provisions as well as other provisions such as the BACT provision under
CAA Section 165(a)(4), mandate that SIPs include PSD programs that are
applicable to, among other things, any air pollutant that is subject to
regulation. As discussed below, this includes GHGs on and after January
2, 2011.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that commenters argued,
with some variations, that the PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS
pollutants, and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD provisions
apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, including GHG. See 75
FR at 31560-62. EPA maintains its position that the PSD provisions
apply to all pollutants subject to regulation, and the Agency
incorporates by reference the discussion of this issue in the
Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of states do not have PSD programs approved into their
SIPs. In those states, EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 govern, and
either EPA or the state as EPA's delegatee acts as the permitting
authority. However, most states have PSD programs that have been
approved into their SIPs, and these states implement their PSD programs
and act as the permitting authority. Alabama has a SIP-approved PSD
program.

D. What actions has EPA taken concerning PSD requirements for GHG-
emitting sources?

1. What are the Endangerment Finding, the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and
the Johnson Memo reconsideration?
    By notice dated December 15, 2009, and pursuant to CAA section
202(a), EPA issued two findings regarding GHGs that are commonly
referred to as the ``Endangerment Finding'' and the ``Cause or
Contribute Finding.'' ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings
for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,'' 74 FR
66496. In the Endangerment Finding, the Administrator found that six
long-lived and directly emitted GHGs--CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6--may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. In the Cause or
Contribute Finding, the Administrator ``defin[ed] the air pollutant as
the aggregate group of the same six * * * greenhouse gases,'' 74 FR at
66536, and found that the combined emissions of this air pollutant from
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG
air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.
    By notice dated May 7, 2010, EPA published what is commonly
referred to as the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule'' (LDVR), which for the
first time established Federal controls on GHGs emitted from light-duty
vehicles. ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324. In
its applicability provisions, the LDVR specifies that it ``contains
standards and other regulations applicable to the emission * * * of six

greenhouse gases,'' including CO2, CH4,
N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 75 FR at 25686 (40 CFR
86.1818-12(a)).
    On December 18, 2008, EPA issued a memorandum, ``EPA's
Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by
Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program''
(known as the ``Johnson Memo'' or the ``PSD Interpretive Memo,'' and
referred to in this preamble as the ``Interpretive Memo''), that set
forth EPA's interpretation regarding which EPA and state actions, with
respect to a previously unregulated pollutant, cause that pollutant to
become ``subject to regulation'' under the Act. Whether a pollutant is
``subject to regulation'' is important for the purposes of determining
whether it is covered under the Federal PSD permitting program. The
Interpretive Memo established that a pollutant is ``subject to
regulation'' only if it is subject to either a provision in the CAA or
regulation adopted by EPA under the CAA that requires actual control of
emissions of that pollutant (referred to as the ``actual control
interpretation''). On February 17, 2009, EPA granted a petition for
reconsideration on the Interpretive Memo and announced its intent to
conduct a rulemaking to allow for public comment on the issues raised
in the memorandum and on related issues. EPA also clarified that the
Interpretive Memo would remain in effect pending reconsideration.
    On April 2, 2010, EPA published a notice conveying its decision to
continue applying (with one limited refinement) the Interpretive Memo's
interpretation of ``subject to regulation.'' ``Reconsideration of
Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by
Clean Air Act Permitting Programs,'' 75 FR 17004. EPA concluded that
the ``actual control interpretation'' is the most appropriate
interpretation to apply given the policy implications. However, EPA
refined the Agency's interpretation in one respect: EPA established
that PSD permitting requirements apply to a newly regulated pollutant
at the time a regulatory requirement to control emissions of that
pollutant ``takes effect'' (rather than upon promulgation or the legal
effective date of the regulation containing such a requirement). In
addition, based on the anticipated promulgation of the LDVR, EPA stated
that the GHG requirements of the vehicle rule would take effect on
January 2, 2011, because that is the earliest date that a 2012 model
year vehicle may be introduced into commerce. In other words, the
compliance obligation under the LDVR does not occur until a
manufacturer may introduce into commerce vehicles that are required to
comply with GHG standards, which will begin with model year 2012 and
will not occur before January 2, 2011.
2. What is EPA's Tailoring Rule?
    On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 2010), EPA promulgated a final
rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the purpose of relieving
overwhelming permitting burdens that would, in the absence of the rule,
fall on permitting authorities and sources. 75 FR 31514. EPA
accomplished this by tailoring the applicability criteria that
determine which GHG emission sources become subject to the PSD program
\4\ of the CAA. In particular, EPA established in the Tailoring Rule a
phase-in approach for PSD applicability and established the first two
steps of the phase-in for the largest GHG-emitters. Additionally, EPA
committed to certain follow-up actions regarding future steps beyond
the first two, discussed in more detail later in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V program,
which requires operating permits for existing sources. However,
today's action does not affect Alabama's title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, which will begin on
January 2, 2011, PSD requirements will apply to major stationary source
GHG emissions only if the sources are subject to PSD anyway due to
their emissions of non-GHG pollutants. Therefore, in the first step,
EPA will not require sources or modifications to evaluate whether they
are subject to PSD requirements solely on account of their GHG
emissions. Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires that as of January 2,
2011, the applicable requirements of PSD, most notably, the BACT
requirement, will apply to projects that increase net GHG emissions by
at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, but only if the project also
significantly increases emissions of at least one non-GHG pollutant.
    The second step of the Tailoring Rule, beginning on July 1, 2011,
will phase in additional large sources of GHG emissions. New sources
that emit, or have the potential to emit, at least 100,000 tpy
CO2e will become subject to the PSD requirements. In
addition, sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least
100,000 tpy CO2e and that undertake a modification that
increases net GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e will
also be subject to PSD requirements. For both steps, EPA notes that if
sources or modifications exceed these CO2e-adjusted GHG
triggers, they are not covered by permitting requirements unless their
GHG emissions also exceed the corresponding mass-based triggers in tpy.
    EPA believes that the costs to the sources and the administrative
burdens to the permitting authorities of PSD permitting will be
manageable at the levels in these initial two steps and that it would
be administratively infeasible to subject additional sources to PSD
requirements at those times. However, EPA also intends to issue a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in 2011, in which the Agency
will propose or solicit comment on a third step of the phase-in that
would include more sources, beginning on July 1, 2013. In the Tailoring
Rule, EPA established an enforceable commitment that the Agency will
complete this rulemaking by July 1, 2012, which will allow for 1 year's
notice before Step 3 would take effect.
    In addition, EPA committed to explore streamlining techniques that
may well make the permitting programs much more efficient to administer
for GHG, and that therefore may allow their expansion to smaller
sources. EPA expects that the initial streamlining techniques will take
several years to develop and implement.
    In the Tailoring Rule, EPA also included a provision, that no
source with emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e, and no
modification resulting in net GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy
CO2e, will be subject to PSD permitting before at least 6
years (i.e., April 30, 2016). This is because EPA has concluded that at
the present time, the administrative burdens that would accompany
permitting sources below this level would be so great that even with
the streamlining actions that EPA may be able to develop and implement
in the next several years, and even with the increases in permitting
resources that EPA can reasonably expect the permitting authorities to
acquire, it would be impossible to administer the permit programs for
these sources until at least 2016.
    As EPA explained in the Tailoring Rule, the threshold limitations
are necessary because without them, PSD would apply to all stationary
sources that emit or have the potential to emit more than 100 or 250
tons of GHG per year beginning on January 2, 2011. This is the date
when EPA's recently promulgated LDVR takes effect, imposing control
requirements for the first time on CO2 and other GHGs. If
this January 2, 2011, date were to pass without the Tailoring Rule
being in effect, PSD requirements would apply to GHG emissions at the
100/250 tpy applicability levels provided under a

literal reading of the CAA as of that date. From that point forward, a
source owner proposing to construct any new major source that emits at
or higher than the applicability levels (and which therefore may be
referred to as a ``major'' source) or modify any existing major source
in a way that would increase GHG emissions would need to obtain a
permit under the PSD program that addresses these emissions before
construction or modification could begin.
    Under these circumstances, many small sources would be burdened by
the costs of the individualized PSD control technology requirements and
permit applications that the PSD provisions, absent streamlining,
require. Additionally, state and local permitting authorities would be
burdened by the extraordinary number of these permit applications,
which are orders of magnitude greater than the current inventory of
permits and would vastly exceed the current administrative resources of
the permitting authorities. Permit gridlock would result since the
permitting authorities would likely be able to issue only a tiny
fraction of the permits requested.
    The Tailoring Rule's thresholds are based on CO2e for
the aggregate sum of six GHGs that constitute the pollutant that will
be subject to regulation, which we refer to as GHG.\5\ These gases are:
CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and
SF6. Thus, in EPA's Tailoring Rule, EPA provided that PSD
applicability is based on the quantity that results when the mass
emissions of each of these gases is multiplied by the GWP of that gas,
and then summed for all six gases. However, EPA further provided that
in order for a source's GHG emissions to trigger PSD requirements, the
quantity of the GHG emissions must equal or exceed both the
applicability thresholds established in the Tailoring Rule on a
CO2e basis and the statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 tpy on
a mass basis.\6\ Similarly, in order for a source to be subject to the
PSD modification requirements, the source's net GHG emissions increase
must exceed the applicable significance level on a CO2e
basis and must also result in a net mass increase of the constituent
gases combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``greenhouse gases'' is commonly used to refer
generally to gases that have heat-trapping properties. However, in
this notice, unless noted otherwise, we use it to refer specifically
to the pollutant regulated in the LDVR.
    \6\ The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V, and 250 tpy
for PSD, except for 28 categories listed in EPA regulations for
which the PSD threshold is 100 tpy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted regulatory language codifying
the phase-in approach. As explained in that rulemaking, many state,
local and tribal area programs will likely be able to immediately
implement the approach without rule or statutory changes by, for
example, interpreting the term ``subject to regulation'' that is part
of the applicability provisions for PSD permitting. EPA has requested
permitting authorities to confirm that they will follow this
implementation approach for their programs, and if they cannot, then
EPA has requested that they notify the Agency so that we can take
appropriate follow-up action to narrow Federal approval of their
programs before GHGs become subject to PSD permitting on January 2,
2011.\7\ On July 31, 2010, Alabama provided a letter to EPA confirming
that the State has the authority to issue PSD permits governing GHG
emissions as of January 2, 2011, but explaining that Alabama needs to
amend its SIP to enable it to implement the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
See the docket for this proposed rulemaking for a copy of Alabama's
letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Narrowing EPA's approval will ensure that for Federal
purposes, sources with GHG emissions that are less than the
Tailoring Rule's emission thresholds will not be obligated under
Federal law to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when GHG
PSD requirements go into effect on January 2, 2011 and when either
(1) EPA approves a SIP revision adopting EPA's tailoring approach,
or (2) if a state opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting sources, the
state demonstrates to EPA that it has adequate resources to handle
permitting for such sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing
action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with respect to those
States for which EPA will not have approved the Tailoring Rule
thresholds in their SIPs by that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What is the GHG SIP call?
    By Federal Register notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed
the GHG SIP Call. In that action, along with the companion GHG FIP
rulemaking published at the same time, EPA took steps to ensure that in
the 13 States that do not appear to have authority to issue PSD permits
to GHG-emitting sources at present, either the State or EPA will have
the authority to issue such permits by January 2, 2011. EPA explained
that although for most states, either the state or EPA is already
authorized to issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources as of that
date, our preliminary information shows that these 13 States have EPA-
approved PSD programs that do not appear to include GHG-emitting
sources and therefore do not appear to authorize these States to issue
PSD permits to such sources. Therefore, EPA proposed to find that these
13 States' SIPs are substantially inadequate to comply with CAA
requirements and, accordingly, proposed to issue a SIP Call to require
a SIP revision that applies their SIP PSD programs to GHG-emitting
sources. In the companion GHG FIP rulemaking, EPA proposed a FIP that
would give EPA authority to apply EPA's PSD program to GHG-emitting
sources in any State that is unable to submit a corrective SIP revision
by its deadline. Alabama was not one of the States for which EPA
proposed a SIP Call.

III. What is the relationship between today's proposed action and EPA's
proposed GHG SIP call and GHG FIP?

    As noted above, by notice dated September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the
GHG SIP Call. At the same time, EPA proposed a FIP to apply in any
state that is unable to submit, by its deadline, a SIP revision to
ensure that the state has authority to issue PSD permits to GHG-
emitting sources.\8\ As discussed in Section IV of this rulemaking,
Alabama interprets its current PSD regulations as providing it with the
authority to regulate GHGs, and as such, Alabama is not included on the
list of areas for the proposed SIP call. Additionally, Alabama would
not be subject to the FIP to implement GHG for PSD applicability.
Alabama's August 17, 2010, proposed SIP revision (the subject of this
rulemaking) merely modifies Alabama's SIP to establish appropriate
thresholds for determining which stationary sources and modification
projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions
under the PSD program of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 FR 53892,
53896), EPA intends to finalize its finding of substantial
inadequacy and the SIP call for the 13 listed states by December 1,
2010. EPA requested that the states for which EPA is proposing a SIP
call identify the deadline--between 3 weeks and 12 months from the
date of signature of the final SIP Call--that they would accept for
submitting their corrective SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's SIP revision?

    On August 17, 2010, ADEM provided a revision to Alabama's SIP to
EPA for parallel processing and eventual approval. This revision to
Alabama's SIP is necessary because without it, PSD requirements would
apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100- or 250-tpy levels provided
under the CAA. This would greatly increase the number of required
permits, imposing undue costs on small sources; which would overwhelm
Alabama's permitting resources and severely impair the function of the
program.
    The State of Alabama's August 17, 2010, proposed SIP revision
establishes thresholds for determining which stationary sources and
modification

projects become subject to permitting requirements for GHG emissions
under Alabama's PSD program. Specifically, Alabama's August 17, 2010,
proposed SIP revision includes changes to ADEM's Rule 335-3-14-04 Air
Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD) and addresses the thresholds
for GHG permitting applicability.
    Alabama is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program, and
has incorporated EPA's 2002 NSR reform revisions for PSD into its SIP.
In a letter provided to EPA on July 31, 2010, Alabama notified EPA of
its interpretation that the State currently has the authority to
regulate GHGs under ADEM's SIP-approved Rule 335-3-14-04 Air Permits
Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Permitting (PSD), which includes the preconstruction
review program required by Part C of title I of the CAA. The current
Alabama program (adopted prior to the promulgation of EPA's Tailoring
Rule) applies to major stationary sources (having the potential to emit
at least 100 tpy or 250 tpy or more of a regulated NSR pollutant,
depending on the type of source) or modifications constructing in areas
designated attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS.
    EPA performed a line-by-line review of the proposed change to
Alabama's SIP-approved PSD regulations 335-3-14-04, Air Permits
Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Permitting (PSD) and preliminarily determined that the
proposed change is consistent with (and substantively the same as) the
change to the Federal provisions made by EPA's Tailoring Rule.
Furthermore, EPA preliminarily determined that this revision to
Alabama's SIP is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g.,
Tailoring Rule, 75 FR at 31561.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's August 17, 2010, SIP
revision, relating to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources.
Specifically, Alabama's August 17, 2010, proposed SIP revision
establishes appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD
applicability with respect to new and modified GHG-emitting sources in
accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that this SIP revision is approvable because it is in
accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting
for GHGs.

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 the State's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the State's law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed 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, Intergovernmental
relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: October 27, 2010.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2010-28010 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 34873]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11499]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2023-0013; OMB No. 1660-0022]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection,
Comment Request; Community Rating System--Application Letter & Quick
Check; Community Annual Recertification; Environmental & Historic
Preservation Certification; NFIP Repetitive Loss Update Form

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60-Day notice of renewal and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension,
without change, of a currently approved information collection. In
accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the application for the
National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) Community Rating System
(CRS) program. This program allows communities to become eligible for
discounts on the cost of flood insurance when the communities undertake
activities to mitigate anticipated damage due to flooding. The
application materials verify and document the community mitigation
activities performed and provides FEMA with the information necessary
to determine what flood insurance premium discounts are appropriate for
participating communities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please submit
comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2023-0013. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used to submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Lesser, Program Specialist,
Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. You may contact the Information Management Division
for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Flood Insurance Reform Act
(NFIRA) of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-325, Sec. 541) requires that a community
rating system be established. This ratings system is a voluntary
program for communities, and it would provide a method by which flood
mitigation activities engaged in by these communities could be
measured. The effect of this mitigation activity would reduce the
exposure of the communities to damage resulting from flooding and in
turn reduce the losses incurred as a result of this flooding. To
encourage participation, discounts on flood insurance are offered
within communities that successfully complete qualified mitigation
actions, and the community ratings system provides the ability to
measure these actions and to recertify the communities in successive
years.

Collection of Information

    Title: Community Rating System (CRS) Program--Application Letter
and CRS Quick Check, Community Annual Recertification, Environmental
and Historic Preservation Certifications, and NFIP Repetitive Loss
Update Form.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1600-0022.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-206-FY-23-100 (formerly 086-0-35),
Community Rating System Application Letter and Quick Check; FEMA Form
FF-206-FY-23-101 (formerly 086-0-35A), Community Annual
Recertifications, FEMA Form FF-206-FY-23-102 (formerly 086-0-35B),
Environmental and Historic Preservation Certifications, and FEMA Form
FF-206-FY-23-103 (formerly 086-0-35C), NFIP Repetitive Loss Update
Form.
    Abstract: The Community Rating System (CRS) Application Letter &
Quick Check, the CRS certification forms, and accompanying guidance are
used by communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program's (NFIP) CRS program. The CRS is a voluntary program where
flood insurance costs are reduced in communities that implement
practices, such as building codes and public awareness activities, that
are considered to reduce the risks of flooding and promote the purchase
of flood insurance.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 2,170.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 4,170.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 52,292.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $4,173,947.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $12,992,290.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the Agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility;
evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2023-11499 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-47-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 90979-90983]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No.: FAA-2016-9526; Amdt. No. 121-397]
RIN 2120-AK95

Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers; Related Aircraft Amendment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This rule allows air carriers to seek a deviation from the
flight simulation training device (FSTD) requirements for related
aircraft proficiency checks. As a result, this rule will eliminate an
inconsistency that currently permits carriers that have obtained FAA
approval to modify the FSTD requirements for related aircraft
differences training, but not for corresponding proficiency checks. In
doing so, it corrects an inadvertent omission from the Qualification,
Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule.

DATES: Effective January 17, 2017.
    Submit comments on or before February 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9526
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: 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 www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheri Pippin, Air Transportation
Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This rule will allow air carriers to seek a deviation from the FSTD
requirements for related aircraft proficiency checks based on a related
aircraft designation and determination of an equivalent level of
safety. As a result, this rule will eliminate an inconsistency that
currently permits carriers that have obtained FAA approval to modify
the FSTD requirements for related aircraft differences training, but
not for corresponding proficiency checks.

II. Administrative Procedure Act and Legal Authority

A. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment
procedures for rules when the agency for ``good cause'' finds that
those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the
rulemaking.
    The FAA finds that notice and public comment to this final rule are
unnecessary. This final rule corrects an inadvertent omission from the
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers
(Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training) final rule by providing
certificate holders additional flexibility in the selection of an FSTD
for related aircraft proficiency check maneuvers and procedures based
on a determination of an equivalent level of safety. As a result, this
rule is relieving for certificate holders. In addition, in the process
of drafting and implementing the suite of rules culminating in the
Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training final rule, the FAA
sought comment on, and thoroughly considered, comments regarding
related aircraft proficiency checks. The updates to Sec.  121.441(f)
contained in this final rule offer additional flexibility; in that, air
carrier certificate holders can request permission to deviate from
related aircraft proficiency check requirements when the proficiency
check is conducted in full, or in part, in an FSTD. Therefore, the FAA
has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary prior to
the adoption of this amendment.

B. Comments Invited

    The FAA is adopting this final rule without prior notice and public
comment because it corrects an inadvertent omission from the
Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training final rule and the FAA
previously sought comment on and considered comments regarding related
aircraft proficiency checks. The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of
the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 1134; February 26, 1979),
provide that to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations
for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on
regulations issued without prior notice. Accordingly, consistent with
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures and 14 CFR 11.11, the FAA seeks
comment on this Final Rule.

C. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which vests final
authority in the Administrator for carrying out all functions, powers,
and duties of the administration relating to the promulgation of
regulations and rules, and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the
Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce
and national security.

III. Background

    On November 12, 2013, the FAA published the Qualification, Service,
and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule (78 FR
67800). In that final rule, effective March 12, 2014, the FAA included
opportunities for air carriers to modify training program requirements
for flightcrew members when the air carrier operates multiple aircraft
types with similar design and flight handling characteristics. The
final rule also included opportunities for air carriers to seek a
deviation to allow credit for flightcrew member qualification
requirements, including proficiency checks, when the air carrier
operates multiple aircraft types with similar design and flight
handling characteristics.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As the FAA clarified in its final rule, the agency uses the
term ``related aircraft'' when describing two or more aircraft of
the same make (with either the same or different type certificates)
that have been demonstrated and determined by the Administrator to
have commonality to the extent that flightcrew member training,
checking, recent experience, operating experience, operating cycles,
and line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and
skills may be reduced while still meeting the training and
qualification requirements for service on the other aircraft. 78 FR
at 67816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule explained that due to differences in instrumentation
and installed equipment, crewmembers trained on one variation of
aircraft type may require additional training to safely and efficiently
operate another variation of the same aircraft type. This additional
training is identified in regulations as differences training.\2\ The
final rule further explained that the FAA, through the Flight
Standardization Board (FSB), provides an analysis of the differences
between variations of an aircraft type, which the FSB documents in an
FSB report for a specific aircraft type. This report may include
recommendations on reduced training frequency, reduced training
elements or events, or use of a lower level FSTD than required by part
121 appendix E (Flight Training Requirements) for a specific maneuver
or procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Sec. Sec.  121.400 and 121.418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the final rule explained the rapid advancement in
modern technologies, both in manufacturing techniques and systems
design and application, can produce aircraft types of differing models
and aerodynamic airframes, with similar handling or flight
characteristics. These modern aircraft systems and displays may allow
different type certificated aircraft to have common flight deck and
systems designs, such that minimal differences training may be
warranted. The FAA, through the FSB, can analyze these aircraft with
different type certificates which may result in recommendations for
training reductions.

Statement of the Problem
    In the Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training final rule,
the FAA intended to extend fully the differences training concept to
aircraft with different type certificates within the new provisions for
related aircraft differences training. In addition, an air carrier may
seek deviations for related aircraft proficiency checks, operating
experience, operating cycles, line operating flight time for
consolidation of knowledge and skills, and recency of experience.
    In the Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training final rule,
the FAA added paragraph (f) to Sec.  121.441, to allow the
Administrator to approve a deviation to the proficiency check
requirements based on a designation of related aircraft and after the
Administrator determines the certificate holder can demonstrate an
equivalent level of safety. Specifically, paragraph (f) allows a
deviation from the frequency of proficiency checks and from certain
procedures and maneuvers required by appendix F (Proficiency Check
Requirements). Paragraph (f) did not, however, include an allowance to
obtain a deviation from the FSTD requirements specified in appendix F.
As currently written, Sec.  121.441(f) does not allow deviation if the
FSB determines that the use of a lower level FSTD for a specific
maneuver or procedure may be acceptable on a related aircraft
proficiency check. Such a determination by the FSB would foreseeably be
based on similarities in design and flight characteristics between the
base aircraft and the related aircraft.

IV. Discussion of Final Rule

    This final rule will correct an inadvertent omission from the
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers
final rule by eliminating an inconsistency that currently permits air
carriers (with FAA approval) to modify the FSTD requirements for
related aircraft differences training, but not for related aircraft
proficiency checks. Because the FAA intended to extend fully the
differences training concept to related aircraft differences training
and deviations, the FAA is revising Sec.  121.441(f)(2) to allow a
certificate holder to request a deviation from the FSTD requirements in
paragraph (c) of Sec.  121.441. To receive a deviation, the certificate
holder must provide a designation of related aircraft and demonstrate
an equivalent level of safety exists to justify the deviation. By this
update, the request for deviation must include the level of FSTD to be
used for each maneuver and procedure.
    Requests for deviation remain voluntary. The FAA has determined
this change would not adversely affect safety of aircraft operations. A
deviation from any proficiency check requirement under Sec.  121.441(f)
is only available if the certificate holder has a designation of
related aircraft. Such a designation indicates the base aircraft and
designated related aircraft have been demonstrated and determined by
the Administrator to have commonality; the certificate holder must be
able to demonstrate that it can maintain the equivalent level of safety
in obtaining the designation.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this rule. This rule would
remove additional requirements with respect to proficiency checks for
aircraft of a related type, as long as FAA has made a determination
that an equivalent level of safety is maintained. Given the relieving
nature of this rule, the economic impact of this rule would be minimal
cost.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    This rule would correct an inadvertent omission from the
Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training final rule and would
eliminate an inconsistency that currently permits air carriers (with
FAA approval) to modify the FSTD requirements for related aircraft
differences training, but not for related aircraft proficiency checks.
This action would result in increased flexibility for certificate
holders. While the rule would likely impact a substantial number of
small

entities,\3\ given the relieving nature of this rule, it would have a
minimal positive economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Based on an analysis of publicly available information, the
FAA assumed that the Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training
final rule would have an impact on a substantial number of small
entities. We make the same determination in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA
certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that the rule
will have the same impact on international and domestic flights and is
a safety rule thus is consistent with the Trade Agreements Act.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(1)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    The FAA has determined that there is no new information collection
associated with this cost relieving amendment to related aircraft
proficiency check requirements. The OMB previously approved the
collection of such information under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and it was assigned OMB
Control Number 2120-0739.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism
implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

VII. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction.

A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its
local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find
out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 121 as follows:

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119, 41706,
42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat.
89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717,
44722, 44729, 44732, 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49
U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732
note).

0
2. Amend Sec.  121.441 by revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2)
introductory text, and (f)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  121.441  Proficiency checks.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) The Administrator may authorize a deviation from the
proficiency check requirements of paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (c) of
this section based upon a designation of related aircraft in accordance
with Sec.  121.418(b) of this part and a determination that the
certificate holder can demonstrate an equivalent level of safety.
    (2) A request for deviation from paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (c) of
this section must be submitted to the Administrator. The request must
include the following:
* * * * *
    (ii) Based on review of the related aircraft, the operation, and
the duty position:
    (A) For recurrent proficiency checks, the frequency of the related
aircraft proficiency check, the maneuvers and procedures to be included
in the related aircraft proficiency check, and the level of FSTD to be
used for each maneuver and procedure.
    (B) For qualification proficiency checks, the maneuvers and
procedures to be included in the related aircraft proficiency check and
the level of FSTD to be used for each maneuver and procedure.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a)
in Washington, DC, on December 8, 2016.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-30211 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 145)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37970-37971]
[DOCID:fr30jy09-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0617; Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-5]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Little River, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Little
River, CA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft
using a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP) at Little River Airport,
Little River, CA. The FAA is proposing this action to enhance the
safety and management of aircraft operations at Little River Airport,
Little River, CA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2009-
0617; Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-5, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA 2009-0617 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-5) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see

ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit
comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2009-0617 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-5''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Area, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending
upward 700 feet or more above the surface at Little River Airport,
Little River, CA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate
aircraft using the new RNAV (GPS) SIAP at Little River Airport, Little
River, CA. This action would enhance the safety and management of
aircraft operations at Little River Airport, Little River, CA.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9S, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes additional controlled airspace at Little River
Airport, Little River, CA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the FAA Order
7400.9S, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed October 3,
2008, and effective October 31, 2008 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Little River, CA [New]

Little River Airport, CA
    (Lat. 39[deg]15'43'' N., long. 123[deg]45'13'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Little River Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on July 24, 2009.
Matt Csicsery,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-18137 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 189 (Monday, October 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54686-54687]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21522]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC21-125-000.
    Applicants: PSEG New Haven LLC, PSEG Power Connecticut LLC, PSEG
Power New York LLC, Generation Bridge II, LLC.
    Description: Errata to September 2, 2021 Joint Application for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of PSEG New
Haven LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 9/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20210928-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/2/21.

    Docket Numbers: EC21-128-000.
    Applicants: PSEG Fossil LLC, PSEG Fossil Sewaren Urban Renewal LLC,
PSEG Keys Energy Center LLC, PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC, Parkway
Generation, LLC, Parkway Generation Essex, LLC.
    Description: Errata to September 2, 2021 Joint Application for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of PSEG Fossil
LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 9/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20210928-5102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG21-258-000.
    Applicants: Dunns Bridge Solar LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Dunns Bridge Solar LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20210928-5140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/21.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2337-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Participating Transmission Owners
Administrative Committee.
    Description: ISO New England Inc., submits Response to Commissions
August 20, 2021 Deficiency Letter.
    Filed Date: 9/20/21.
    Accession Number: 20210920-5181.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2722-001.
    Applicants: E. BarreCo Corp LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 1 to be effective 10/
20/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20210928-5137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2946-000.
    Applicants: The Connecticut Light and Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Study Work Agreement with
New York Independent System Operator, Inc. to be effective 9/29/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20210928-5014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2947-000.
    Applicants: NRG Power Marketing LLC.
    Description: NRG Power Marketing LLC submits Request for Limited,
One-Time Waiver of the New York Independent System Operator Inc. Market
Administration and Control Area Services Tariff.
    Filed Date: 9/27/21.
    Accession Number: 20210927-5190.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2948-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.Description: Sec.
205(d) Rate Filing: 2021 Revised Added Facilities Rate for Rate
Schedules to be effective 10/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20210928-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2949-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SEPA Amended and Restated
Network Agreement Filing (Revision No. 11) to be effective 9/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/28/21
    Accession Number: 20210928-5101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2950-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator
Corporation.Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2021-09-28 EIM
Implementation Agreement--WAPA to be effective 11/28/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20210928-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2951-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reimbursement Agreement--
PPI-Murrayville, Rate Schedule 156 to be effective 11/29/2021.
    Filed Date: 9/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20210928-5123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF21-1278-000.
    Applicants: 575 Fifth Avenue CHP LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of 575 Fifth Avenue CHP LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/28/21.
    Accession Number: 20210928-5085.
    Comment Date: 10/19/21.

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

    Dated: September 28, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21522 Filed 10-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20020-20021]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7952]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9655-2]

Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Availability of List Decisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Responsiveness
Summary Concerning EPA's November 30, 2011, Public Notice of Proposed
Decisions to Add Waters and Pollutants to Louisiana's 2010 Section
303(d) List.
    On November 30, 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published a notice in the Federal Register at Volume 76, Number
230, pages 74057-74058 providing the public the opportunity to review
its decision to partially approve and proposal to partially disapprove
Louisiana's 2010 Section 303(d) List. Specifically, EPA approved
Louisiana's listing of 410 waterbody pollutant combinations, and
associated priority rankings. EPA proposed to disapprove Louisiana's
decisions not to list three waterbodies. These three waterbodies were
added by EPA because the applicable numeric water quality standards
marine criterion for dissolved oxygen was not attained in these
segments.
    Based on the Responsiveness Summary, EPA finds no new information
or persuasive arguments as to why the three waters should not be added
to the 2010 Louisiana Section 303(d) List as proposed. Therefore, EPA
is taking Final Action on the addition of three waterbody pollutant
combinations to the final Louisiana 2010 Section 303(d) List. The basis
for these decisions is described in EPA's Responsiveness Summary and
the Record of Decision.

ADDRESSES: Copies of EPA's Responsiveness Summary Concerning EPA's
March 20, 2012 Public Notice of Final Decisions to Add Waters and
Pollutants to Louisiana's 2010 Section 303(d) List can be obtained at
EPA Region 6's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/tmdl/index.htm#303dlists, or by writing or calling Ms. Diane Smith at Water
Quality Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-
2145, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Underlying documents from the administrative record for these decisions
are available for public inspection at the above address. Please
contact Ms. Smith to schedule an inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diane Smith at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
requires that each state identify those waters for which existing
technology-based pollution controls are not stringent enough to attain
or maintain state water quality standards. For those waters, states are
required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) according to a
priority ranking.
    EPA's Water Quality Planning and Management regulations include
requirements related to the implementation of Section 303(d) of the CWA
(40 CFR 130.7). The regulations require states to identify water
quality limited waters still requiring TMDLs every two years. The list
of waters still needing TMDLs must also include priority rankings and
must identify the waters targeted for TMDL development during the next
two years (40 CFR 130.7).
    Consistent with EPA's regulations, Louisiana submitted to EPA its
2010 listing decisions under Section 303(d) on January 13, 2011. On
November 30, 2011, EPA approved Louisiana's 2010 listing of 410 water
body-pollutant combinations and associated priority rankings, and
proposed to disapprove Louisiana's decisions not to list three
waterbodies. On March 20, 2012, EPA finalized the action to disapprove
Louisiana's 2010 listing decisions not to list three water quality
limited segments. EPA identified these additional waters and pollutants
along

with priority rankings for inclusion on the 2010 Section 303(d) List.

    Dated: March 20, 2012.
William K. Honker,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012-7952 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P