[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 202 (Wednesday, October 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71991-71997]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25145]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0107; FRL-9954-13-Region 8]

Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport for Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action on portions of six submissions from the State of Utah that are
intended to demonstrate that the State Implementation Plan (SIP) meets
certain interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or
CAA). These submissions address the 2006 and 2012 fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS, 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS and 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
NAAQS. The interstate transport requirements under the CAA consist of
four elements: Significant contribution to nonattainment (prong 1) and
interference with maintenance (prong 2) of the NAAQS in other states;
and interference with measures required to be included in the plan for
other states to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong
3) or to protect visibility (prong 4). Specifically, the EPA is
approving interstate transport prongs 1, 2 and 4 for the 2008 Pb NAAQS,
approving prong 4 for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, disapproving prong
4 for the 2006 PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, and disapproving prong 2 for the 2008
ozone NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0107. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available,
e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the
docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal
holidays.

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

    On May 10, 2016, the EPA proposed action on two submittals from
Utah for the interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb and 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 28807.
An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the
state's submittals, and the EPA's rationale for approval of a portion
of the 2008 Pb submittal and disapproval of a portion of the 2008 ozone
submittal were all provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and
will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed
rule ended on June 9, 2016. The EPA received four comments on the
proposal, which will be addressed in the ``Response to Comments''
section, below.
    In the May 10, 2016 proposed action, the EPA proposed to disapprove
the Utah SIP for prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In that document, the EPA cited to air quality
modeling conducted to support the promulgation of an update to the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to address interstate transport with
respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (CSAPR Update). The air quality
modeling (1) identified locations in the U.S. where the EPA anticipates
nonattainment or maintenance issues in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
(these are identified as nonattainment and maintenance receptors), and
(2) quantified the projected contributions from emissions from upwind
states to downwind ozone concentrations at the nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in 2017. The document also

proposed to apply an air quality threshold of one percent of the NAAQS,
equivalent to 0.75 ppb with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, to
determine whether a state was ``linked'' to an identified downwind air
quality problem in another state such that the upwind state may
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the NAAQS in the downwind state. The proposal modeling data showed
that emissions from Utah contribute above the one percent threshold to
two identified maintenance receptors and one nonattainment receptor in
the Denver, Colorado area. Accordingly, as the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality (UDEQ) did not provide technical analysis to
support the State's conclusion that emissions originating in Utah do
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state, the EPA
proposed to disapprove the Utah SIP as to prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    On September 7, 2016, the EPA promulgated a final CSAPR Update,
which included updated modeling data that reflected responses to
comments received in the context of the CSAPR Update rulemaking.\1\ The
updated modeling projects three maintenance receptors in the Denver,
Colorado area, but it does not project any nonattainment receptors in
that area. Table 1 summarizes the air quality modeling results from the
updated modeling conducted to support the final CSAPR Update relative
to Utah. The modeling continues to indicate that Utah contributes
emissions above the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb with respect to 3
maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area, confirming the data
cited at proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pre-publication version of the final CSAPR Update
rulemaking can be found in the docket for this action, and is
available at https://www3.epa.gov/airmarkets/CSAPRU/Cross-State%20Air%20Pollution%20Rule%20Update%20for%20the%202008%20Ozone%20NAAQS%202060%20AS05%20FRM.pdf (Federal Register publication
pending).

                     Table 1--Maintenance Receptors With Utah Contribution Modeled Above 1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Utah modeled
              Monitor I.D.                           State                      County             contribution
                                                                                (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80590006................................  Colorado..................  Jefferson.................            1.03
80590011................................  Colorado..................  Jefferson.................            1.17
80350004................................  Colorado..................  Douglas...................            1.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the updated modeling continues to indicate that the
contributions from Utah are above the one percent threshold of 0.75 ppb
with respect to maintenance receptors in the Denver, Colorado area, and
because the State has not otherwise provided a technical analysis which
demonstrates that its SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that will interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in any other state, the EPA is finalizing a disapproval of the Utah SIP
with respect to the prong 2 requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Based on this new technical information showing that there are no
longer any projected 2017 nonattainment receptors in the Denver,
Colorado area or any other state to which Utah contributes at or above
the one percent threshold, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed
disapproval with respect to prong 1 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as the proposed disapproval was based on in
part on the EPA's August 4, 2015 Notice of Data Availability (NODA)
modeling of a projected nonattainment receptor in Denver, Colorado. 80
FR 46271. The EPA will address the prong 1 requirements in a separate,
subsequent rulemaking.
    On August 1, 2016, the EPA proposed action on six submittals from
Utah for the visibility-related interstate transport requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4. 81 FR 50430. An explanation of
the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the state's submittals,
and the EPA's rationale for approval of portions of the 2008 Pb and
2010 SO2 submittals and disapproval of portions of the 2006
and 2012 PM2.5, 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2
submittals were all provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and
will not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed
rule ended on August 31, 2016. The EPA did not receive any comments on
this proposed action.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Commenters UDEQ and the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality (WDEQ) asserted that the CSAPR Update rulemaking
was developed and promulgated for eastern states, and should not apply
to western states. UDEQ stated that the EPA acknowledged in the CSAPR
Update proposal that it will address contribution levels of western
states like Utah on a case-by-case basis. 80 FR 75706, 75708 through
75709, December 3, 2015. The commenters contend that the EPA should
consider other factors beyond those considered in developing the CSAPR
Update.
    UDEQ asserted that there are higher naturally occurring levels of
background ozone in the west,\2\ specifically citing the EPA's draft
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the proposed 2015 ozone NAAQS
rulemaking, contending that ``background ozone is a relatively large
percentage (e.g. 70-80%) of the total seasonal mean ozone in locations
in the intermountain western United States.'' \3\ The commenter
contends that background ozone levels in Utah and Colorado must be
taken into consideration when evaluating nonattainment areas within the
state borders and the impact that they have on intermountain downwind
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 79 FR
75234, 75382 (December 17, 2014) (proposed rule).
    \3\ EPA's draft Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed
Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone p.
2-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter WDEQ stated that the CSAPR modeling does not adequately
account for important regional differences between the east and the
west, including the unique topography, altitude, weather and wildfire
prevalence (including intensity and duration) in the western U.S. The
commenter asserted that the EPA did not provide a technical explanation
for how the model accounts for the differences between the eastern and
western U.S. with regard to these factors, and that such an analysis
should be conducted before the CSAPR modeling is applied to evaluate

interstate transport with respect to western states. The commenter
recommended that the EPA work with western states to ``make regional
adjustments and remove erroneous data from the CSAPR model.''
    Response: The commenter does not provide any evidence or technical
basis for their claim about the inadequacies of the CSAPR Update
modeling for the western U.S. As described in the CSAPR Update Air
Quality Modeling Technical Support Document (AQM TSD), the CSAPR
modeling was performed for a nationwide domain that accounted for the
differences in emissions (including actual wild fires), meteorology,
and topography in various regions across the U.S. The AQM TSD includes
an evaluation of 2011 base year model performance for 8-hour daily
maximum concentrations on a regional and statewide basis as well as for
individual monitoring sites. For example, the performance evaluation
results for the region that includes Utah and Colorado indicate a mean
bias of less than 10 percent for 8-hour daily maximum predicted ozone
concentrations compared to the corresponding measured data. As
described more fully in the AQM TSD, the EPA's use of the CAMx source
apportionment modeling for the CSAPR Update is appropriate and the
Agency finds its use sufficient for the purposes of assessing and
identifying downwind air quality problems and contributions from upwind
states in both the eastern and the western U.S. \4\ The emissions
modeling TSD for the CSAPR Update final rule ``Preparation of Emission
Inventories for the version 6.3, 2011 Emissions Modeling Platform''
describes how fire emissions were developed and modeled using a
consistent approach for the contiguous U.S. As described earlier, the
most updated modeling continues to indicate that emissions from Utah
will interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS at three
receptors in the Denver, Colorado area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``The EPA used CAMx photochemical source apportionment
modeling to quantify the impact of emissions in specific upwind
states on downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors for 8-
hour ozone. CAMx employs enhanced source apportionment techniques
that track the formation and transport of ozone from specific
emissions sources and calculates the contribution of sources and
precursors to ozone for individual receptor locations. The strength
of the photochemical model source apportionment technique is that
all modeled ozone at a given receptor location in the modeling
domain is tracked back to specific sources of emissions and boundary
conditions to fully characterize culpable sources.'' 80 FR 75726,
December 3, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA does not find the information provided by the commenters to
indicate flaws in the modeling conducted by the EPA. Rather, the
commenters point to factors which the CSAPR Update modeling
specifically took into account. For these reasons, the EPA disagrees
with these comments and finds the use of the CSAPR Update modeling to
evaluate Utah's contributions to interstate transport is reasonable and
supported.
    The EPA did acknowledge in the proposed CSAPR Update that ``there
may be additional criteria to evaluate regarding collective
contribution of transported air pollution in the West,'' and that
``timeframe constrains the opportunity to conduct evaluations of
additional criteria'' in the context of that rulemaking. 80 FR 75709,
December 3, 2015. The commenters do not explain how the EPA's modeling
has allegedly failed to consider the other factors that they contend
should be taken into account. With respect to background
concentrations, UDEQ has not explained how it believes the EPA must
consider background ozone levels in evaluating interstate transport in
the west, nor has UDEQ cited any specific provision of the statute that
specifically requires such consideration. While the EPA does not view
the obligation under the good neighbor provision as a requirement for
upwind states to bear all of the burden for resolving downwind air
quality problems, both upwind and downwind states can take reasonable
steps to control emissions impacting downwind air quality even in areas
affected by high levels of background concentrations of ozone. Were the
EPA to absolve upwind states of the responsibility to make such
reasonable reductions, the area's citizens would suffer the health and
environmental consequences of such inaction.
    Notably, in its comment letter, UDEQ agreed that a further
technical analysis was necessary to demonstrate that the state had
satisfied prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and the
State is in the process of developing such an analysis. The EPA will
review that additional analysis when it is submitted to the EPA in a
subsequent SIP submission.
    Comment: Commenter Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) cites to
EPA's action to approve Arizona's SIP in spite of the CSAPR Update
modeling indicating that the state significantly contributed to
nonattainment at two California receptors. The commenter contends that
the EPA's differing actions on the Utah and Arizona SIPs amount to
developing policy about what transport criteria apply in western
states. The commenter asserted that the EPA's actions on these two SIPs
establish regulatory policy in a piecemeal fashion through separate,
case-by-case rulemakings, and that this practice leads to confusion and
uncertainty among state officials, the public, and the regulated
community. The commenter stated that the EPA should describe the
western transport criteria in a comprehensive rulemaking which includes
a rationale for selecting these criteria. The commenter asserted that
the EPA's failure to do so would deprived interested parties of an
opportunity to provide meaningful and comprehensive comments on this
issue.
    Response: As described in the proposal for this action and in the
CSAPR Update, the EPA is assessing each of the western states transport
obligations on a case-by-case basis using the information available,
which includes information from the CSAPR Update modeling. The
rulemaking addressing the Arizona SIP explains, as the commenter notes,
why additional factors are relevant to evaluating Arizona's
contribution to other states, factors that are not similarly applicable
to Utah's contribution to the Denver receptors. Nothing in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires the EPA to establish criteria for
evaluating individual SIPs through a national rulemaking. See EPA v.
EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014) (``nothing
in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide specific
metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor
obligation''). As required by the CAA and Administrative Procedures
Act, the EPA clearly described its bases for disapproving the Utah SIP
in its proposal. Similarly, the EPA also described its bases for
approving the Arizona SIP in its proposal for that action. The public,
including the commenter, had an opportunity to provide meaningful and
comprehensive comments both on the Utah and Arizona actions, and
therefore the EPA disagrees that interested parties are deprived of an
opportunity to comment on issues relating to the EPA's analysis of
western transport.
    Comment: Commenter WDEQ stated that the EPA did not provide an
explanation as to what technical analysis from the State of Utah would
have been sufficient. Another commenter (UARG), quoting language from
the CSAPR Update proposal (80 FR 75715, December 3, 2015), stated that
EPA should identify and explain the additional criteria that may be
relevant to the western states and whether it is necessary and
appropriate to also evaluate the same criteria with respect to eastern
states. The commenter

asserted that the EPA's failure to address this issue denied the public
a meaningful opportunity to comment on it.
    Response: The Supreme Court has made clear that ``nothing in the
statute places EPA under an obligation to provide specific metrics to
States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor
obligation.'' EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 S.Ct. at 1601.
Thus, the EPA does not agree that it is required to identify all
relevant criteria for evaluating SIPs before taking formal action on
the submissions. The Court explained that ``[t]he statute speaks
without reservation: Once a NAAQS has issued, a state `shall' propose a
SIP within three years, [40 U.S.C.] 7410(a)(1), and that SIP `shall'
include, among other components, provisions adequate to satisfy the
Good Neighbor Provision, [40 U.S.C.] 7410(a)(2).'' Id. It is therefore
the responsibility of the state to demonstrate that its SIP contains
provisions sufficient to meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A state can and should submit all of the technical
information it considers relevant to evaluate its contribution to
downwind air quality, including anticipated changes in the emissions
from sources within the state and any additional factors specific to
the state that influence its emissions and air pollution which may
transport to other states. As we noted at proposal and in this final
action, Utah has not submitted technical information or analysis which
leads the EPA to conclude that the state is not interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other states, particularly in light of air
quality modeling demonstrating that emissions from Utah impact air
quality in Denver, Colorado. The basis for this conclusion was clearly
explained at proposal, and the EPA therefore does not agree that the
public did not have a meaningful opportunity to comment on the factors
relevant to the proposed disapproval of the Utah SIP submission.
    Comments regarding the factors relevant to evaluation of interstate
transport with respect to eastern states are out of the scope of this
rulemaking and do not require a response.
    Comment: Commenter UDEQ stated that Utah's contributions to Denver
are modest and other factors weigh against the conclusion of
significant contribution or interference with maintenance. UDEQ argued
that the one percent threshold should be a screening threshold that can
be overcome by empirical evidence. The commenter cited a proposed EPA
action on Idaho's SIP in which EPA Region 10 did not rely solely on
Idaho's contribution being below one percent in its action on that SIP,
but also considered Idaho's modeling data and analysis that reinforced
the EPA modeling results. 80 FR 66862, October 30, 2015. UDEQ argued
that the EPA should follow this and ``consider additional factors when
evaluating Utah's ozone infrastructure SIP.'' Commenter WDEQ claimed
that it is appropriate for western states to use a ``weight of
evidence'' approach, as was used in EPA Region 9's proposed action on
Arizona's 2008 ozone transport SIP. 81 FR 15200, March 22, 2016.
    Response: The EPA encourages states to submit any relevant
information, such as that submitted by Idaho, to assist us in
evaluating a state's impact on downwind state's air quality and the
control requirements in order to determine whether a state's SIP is
approvable. The EPA agrees that it is appropriate to analyze all
information for western states and make a conclusion based on a weight
of the evidence, but the EPA has not received any such evidence from
UDEQ that is sufficient to alter our determination that Utah interferes
with maintenance at Denver area receptors.
    The EPA notes that the one percent threshold as used in the CSAPR
rulemakings is in fact a screening threshold. States are not determined
to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance downwind merely because emissions from the state exceed the
one percent threshold. Rather, the threshold is used to identify those
states that are subject to further analysis to determine whether cost-
effective reductions are achievable from sources within the states. The
levels of such reductions quantify the amounts of emissions that
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance in other states. CSAPR Update, Final Rule, pre-publication
draft at 77-80. If UDEQ believes that the EPA should consider
additional factors with respect to its linkage to the Denver receptors,
it should identify those factors in its SIP submission. But as noted,
UDEQ did not provide any technical analysis in its SIP submission, and
to the extent additional factors have been identified in UDEQ's
comments, it did not explain how those factors should affect the EPA's
conclusion in this action. Without explaining how such factors should
impact EPA's analysis, the EPA does not agree that Utah's impacts on
the Denver receptors are modest, particularly considering emissions
from the State contribute as much as twice the one percent air quality
threshold, nor has the State offered any analysis to support this
conclusory statement.
    The EPA also analyzed the State's submission and in the proposal
described deficiencies such as a lack of quantification of the included
emission reduction measures or evaluation of how such measures are
sufficient to address the State's contribution to nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in Denver, Colorado. The commenters here again
provide no information as to why the EPA's case-specific analysis of
Utah's SIP is incorrect.
    Comment: Commenter UDEQ asserted that the one percent screening
threshold is arbitrary, stating that EPA only explains why it rejected
five percent and anything below one percent, but does not justify one
percent as opposed to two percent, which Utah meets. UDEQ argued that
this threshold has not been subject to sufficient scrutiny and comment
when applied to western states, and that the EPA has only determined
that the one percent threshold is appropriate for eastern states. 80 FR
66862-66863, October 30, 2015.
    Response: As stated in the May 10, 2016 proposal for this final
action, the EPA believes contribution from an individual state equal to
or above one percent of the NAAQS could be considered significant where
the collective contribution of emissions from one or more upwind states
is responsible for a considerable portion of the downwind air quality
problem. The EPA's analysis has shown that the one percent threshold
captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting
downwind states. 81 FR 28810, May 10, 2016. This threshold has been
used by the EPA in past transport actions including the original CSAPR
(76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011), and the EPA determined this threshold
was appropriate following the public comment process in those previous
rulemakings.
    In the final CSAPR Update rulemaking, the EPA compiled the
contribution modeling results from the air quality modeling in order to
analyze the impact of different possible thresholds, and concluded that
the one percent threshold continues to be a reasonable means of
accounting for the combined impact of relatively small contributions
from many upwind states. See CSAPR Update, Final Rule, pre-publication
draft at 81-82; AQM TSD. For each of the ozone receptors identified in
the final CSAPR Update rule analysis, the EPA identified: (1) The total
upwind state contributions, and (2) the amount of the total upwind

state contribution that is captured at one percent, five percent, and
half (0.5) percent of the NAAQS. The EPA continues to find that the
total collective contribution from upwind states' sources represent a
significant portion of the ozone concentrations at downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptor locations. This analysis shows
that the one percent threshold generally captures a substantial
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states
without also implicating states that contribute insignificant amounts.
Analysis of the data for the Denver receptors at issue in this
rulemaking results in the same conclusion. Use of a higher threshold
would result in a relatively large reduction in the overall percentage
of ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured
at the one percent level at the receptors. For example, none of the
transport from upwind states would be captured with a five percent
threshold.
    Although UDEQ proposes that the EPA should instead use a two
percent threshold with respect to the Denver receptors, it has not
submitted additional information or analysis to assist the EPA in
determining whether there is an appropriate alternative contribution
threshold for Utah or western states generally. Rather, UDEQ's proposal
to use a two percent threshold appears to only be justified by the
conclusion that Utah would not have been linked to Denver receptors at
this level (the updated modeling indicates contribution to a
maintenance receptor above two percent: See Table 1 of this preamble).
Given the lack of relevant information or analysis submitted by the
State, and based on an analysis of EPA's own CAMx air quality modeling
data, the EPA continues to find that the one percent threshold is
appropriate to apply to identify upwind states linked to the Denver
receptors.
    Comment: Commenter UDEQ asserted that the IPM model used to project
emissions for electric generating units is not precise. The commenter
supported this assertion by citing a comment from Louisiana Chemical
Association (LCA) on the NODA which stated the IPM model ``is simply
not accurate enough and is dependent upon too many uncertain
assumptions and imprecise inputs to make binding decisions of
`significant contribution' or `interference with maintenance' when
dealing with projections of ozone at part per billion level.'' UDEQ
argued that this model is imprecise and should therefore be subject to
``opportunity for rebuttal based on empirical evidence.''
    Response: The EPA has addressed LCA's comment in the response to
comments document on the CSAPR Update proposal. In that document, we
noted that the D.C. Circuit Court has recognized the usefulness of
models despite the inherent uncertainty. In upholding the EPA's
approach to evaluating interstate transport in CSAPR, the D.C. Circuit
held that they would not ``invalidate EPA's predictions solely because
there might be discrepancies between those predictions and the real
world. That possibility is inherent in the enterprise of prediction.''
EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 135 (2015). The
court continued to note that ``the fact that a `model does not fit
every application perfectly is no criticism; a model is meant to
simplify reality in order to make it tractable.' '' Id. at 135-36
(quoting Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 28 F.3d 1259, 1264
(D.C. Cir. 1994).
    The EPA has also provided thorough explanation as to how the
modeling conducted for the CSAPR Update was appropriate. As stated in
the final CSAPR Update, ``the EPA projected future 2017 baseline EGU
emissions using version 5.15 of the Integrated Planning Model (IPM)
(www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-sector-modeling). IPM, developed by ICF
Consulting, is a state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed, multiregional,
dynamic, deterministic linear programming model of the contiguous U.S.
electric power sector. . . The model is designed to reflect electricity
markets as accurately as possible. The EPA uses the best available
information from utilities, industry experts, gas and coal market
experts, financial institutions, and government statistics as the basis
for the detailed power sector modeling in IPM.'' \5\ CSAPR Update,
Final Rule, pre-publication draft at 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Detailed information and documentation of the EPA's Base
Case, including all the underlying assumptions, data sources, and
architecture parameters can be found on the EPA's Web site at:
www.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-sector-modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have not received empirical evidence from the State to rebut our
conclusions as stated in the proposal for this final rulemaking.
    Comment: Commenter UDEQ argued that the EPA's reliance on IPM
modeling is incorrect in Utah's case because this modeling used a 2011
emissions inventory that excluded certain enforceable reductions and
included Carbon plant emissions, though the facility is no longer in
operation.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that the IPM modeling excluded certain
enforceable reductions and included Carbon plant emissions. The
shutdown of the Carbon power plant was accounted for in the CSAPR
Update modeling, and no emissions were modeled from the facility in the
2017 scenario. (See documents and EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500-0205 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0500-0014 in the docket for the CSAPR Update, or in the docket
for this rulemaking. These documents, respectively, are the NEEDS
database which defines the starting fleet in IPM and a unit level
comparison of emissions from point sources between the 2011 and 2017
inventories). As for the other enforceable reductions referenced by the
commenter, we cannot respond because the commenter has not provided
specific detail as to the reductions that were unaccounted for. The EPA
has encouraged and given the opportunity for states to submit
information with regard to any inconsistencies between ``on the books''
upcoming reductions and the emissions modeled for the CSAPR Update in
both that proposed rulemaking and in the August 4, 2015 NODA. 80 FR
46271, August 4, 2015.
    Comment: Commenter UDEQ asserted that western states do not have
confidence in the way in which they can submit data for consideration
under the Exceptional Events Rule, which has not yet been finalized.
UDEQ stated that ``it will be difficult for the EPA to get an accurate
assessment of the responsibility that Utah and other western states
have to downwind states with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS as used in
CSAPR until the EPA releases a final rule on these revisions.''
Commenter insisted that finalization of this rulemaking will allow the
EPA to address data influenced by wildfires, stratospheric intrusions,
and abnormally high background ozone.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the final Exceptional Events Rule
will assist states and the EPA in preparing and processing exceptional
events demonstrations for events, including wildfires, which contribute
to monitored ozone NAAQS exceedances or violations, if those events
meet the applicable criteria in the Exceptional Events Rule, including
(1) the event affected air quality; (2) the event was not reasonably
controllable or preventable; and (3) the event was caused by human
activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or was a
natural event. Exceptional Events Final Rule, pre-publication draft.\6\
Although the rule is intended to

streamline the exceptional events demonstration process, there is an
exceptional events rule and process currently in place. See 40 CFR
50.14. We have not received and failed to act on exceptional events
demonstrations from states that would impact the determination that
Utah interferes with maintenance at receptors in the Denver area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events,''
final rule, pre-publication draft as signed by EPA Administrator
Gina McCarthy on September 16, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA disagrees with the comment's note that abnormally high
background ozone itself may qualify as an exceptional event. An
exceptional event must be defined by the source of its emissions. If
the underlying source is a natural event (e.g., wildfire) and the
emissions influence a regulatory monitor, then it can be considered for
exclusion under the Exceptional Events Rule. If the underlying source
is anthropogenic then the explicit text of CAA section 319 requires
that it can only be considered under the Exceptional Events Rule if the
activity causing emissions is unlikely to recur at a particular
location. The meteorological processes that result in pollutant
transport and the formation of background ozone are ongoing and thus
not an event, even though their influence on ambient concentrations at
a particular time and location may be observed only occasionally and
thus seem ``event-like.'' Regardless of where the activity or event
that caused emissions occurred, and regardless of whether the emissions
travel internationally or interstate, all exceptional event criteria
applicable to that activity or event must be met in order for the
emissions to be excluded.
    Comment: Commenter WDEQ stated that the EPA's application of CSAPR
to the western U.S. will place an undue burden on all western states.
WDEQ noted that its department lacks staff experienced in running
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11)
modeling, and asserted that the EPA has acknowledged that this modeling
is quite costly and resource intensive.
    Response: States are not required to conduct modeling to address
their interstate transport requirements under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, where the EPA has conducted modeling that
indicates emissions from a state may impact air quality in another
state, both the EPA and the state must address how that modeling
impacts any conclusion regarding the upwind state's compliance with the
statutory interstate transport requirements. The EPA understands that
air quality modeling can be both complex and resource intensive, and
remains committed to assisting the states in conducting or reviewing
air quality modeling and other relevant technical information for the
purposes of determining compliance with CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

III. Final Action

    In this action, the EPA is approving the Utah SIP with regard to
certain interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2008 Pb and 2010 SO2 NAAQS from the
State's certifications as shown in Table 2 of this preamble. The EPA is
disapproving the Utah SIP with regard to certain interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006
PM2.5, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS as shown in Table 3 of this preamble. As noted
in our August 1, 2016 proposed action, the EPA is not required to take
further action with regard to the prong 4 disapprovals, because a FIP
is already in place for Utah that corrects all regional haze, and thus
visibility transport, SIP deficiencies. 81 FR 43894. This action is
being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

 Table 2--List of Utah Interstate Transport Prongs That EPA Is Approving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Final approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 19, 2012 submittal--2008 Pb NAAQS:
    (D)(i)(I) prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
June 2, 2013 submittal--2010 SO2 NAAQS:
    (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Table 3--List of Utah Interstate Transport Prongs That EPA Is
                              Disapproving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Final disapproval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 21, 2010 submittal--2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
    (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
January 31, 2013 submittal--2008 Ozone NAAQS:
    (D)(i)(I) prong 2, (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
January 31, 2013 submittal--2010 NO2 NAAQS:
    (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
December 22, 2015 submittal--2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
    (D)(i)(II) prong 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. 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, the EPA's role is to approve state actions,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves some state law provisions as meeting federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
federal requirements; this action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the 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, the SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 19, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 29, 2016.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2354 is amended by redesignating the introductory text as
paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b).
    The addition reads as follows:

Subpart TT--Utah

Sec.  52.2354   Interstate transport.

* * * * *
    (b) Addition to the Utah State Implementation Plan regarding the
2008 Pb Standard for CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) prongs 1, 2 and 4,
submitted to EPA on January 19, 2012, and addition to the Utah SIP
regarding the 2010 SO2 Standard for CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) prong 4, submitted to EPA on June 2, 2013.

[FR Doc. 2016-25145 Filed 10-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17631-17632]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07055]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 China Shen Zhou Mining & Resources, Inc., Ideal Financial
Solutions, Inc., Smooth Global (China) Holdings, Inc., Weikang Bio-
Technology Group Co., Inc., and 1st Pacific Bancorp File No. 500-1

March 26, 2014.

Order of Suspension of Trading

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
China Shen Zhou Mining & Resources, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Ideal Financial Solutions, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Smooth Global (China) Holdings, Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Weikang Bio-Technology Group Co., Inc. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2009.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
1st Pacific Bancorp because it has not filed any periodic reports since
the period ended September 30, 2009.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies

is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 26, 2014,
through 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 8, 2014.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07055 Filed 3-26-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 121 (Wednesday, June 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36398-36399]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-
2007-27333; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-
2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2013-0021]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
23 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective July 22, 2015. Comments must be
received on or before July 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2001-
9258; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2009-
0121; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-
0102; FMCSA-2013-0021], using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

II. Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 23 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 23 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

 Juan D. Adame, Jr. (TX), Stanley C. Anders (SD), David W. Bennett
(NC), Joel A. Cabrera (FL), Sherman W. Clapper (ID), John L. Elder, III
(DE), Eric Esplin (UT), Ronald R. Fournier (NY), Anthony Hall (LA),
Ronald D. Jackman II (NV), Thomas W. Kent (IN), Gerald Kortesmaki (MN),
John W. Locke (TX), Robert J. MacInnis (MA), Steve J. Morrison (ID),
Ellie L. Murphree (AL), Steven A. Proctor (TX), Adolph L. Romero (FL),
Jose Sanchez-Sanchez (KS), Robert B. Steinmetz (OR), Rodney W. Sukalski
(MN), Larry D. Warneke (WA), Lonnie D. Wendinger (MN).

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 23 applicants has

satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
vision requirements (66 FR 17743; 66 FR 33990; 68 FR 35772; 70 FR
17504; 70 FR 30997; 70 FR 33937; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 30227; 72 FR 12666;
72 FR 25831; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 32705; 73 FR 27014; 74 FR 19270; 74 FR
26461; 74 FR 26464; 74 FR 34630; 75 FR 50799; 75 FR 72863; 76 FR 2190;
76 FR 17481; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 28125; 76 FR 29022; 76 FR 34135; 76 FR
37168; 76 FR 37173; 76 FR 37885; 76 FR 44082; 78 FR 10251; 78 FR 20379;
78 FR 24300; 78 FR 34140; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 51268; 78 FR 51269; 78 FR
57679). Each of these 23 applicants has requested renewal of the
exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a
review of each record of safety while driving with the respective
vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant
continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-
2007-27333; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-
2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2013-0021), indicate the specific
section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a
reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your
comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include
your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in
the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has
questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, got to http://www.regulations.gov
and put the docket number, ``FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-
2006-24015; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-
2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2013-0021'' in the
``Keyword'' box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears,
click on ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into the text
box in the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your
comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period and may change this
notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number,
``FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2007-
27333; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2010-0354; FMCSA-2011-0024; FMCSA-2011-
0092; FMCSA-2011-0102; FMCSA-2013-0021'' in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button choose the
document listed to review. If you do not have access to the Internet,
you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: June 17, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-15509 Filed 6-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77150-77155]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31664]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0872; FRL-9504-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; General Conformity Requirements for Federal Agencies
Applicable to Federal Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Commonwealth of Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision
consists of a regulation adopted by Virginia to incorporate revisions
to Federal general conformity requirements promulgated in July of 2006
and in April of 2010. EPA is approving this Virginia SIP revision to
update its state general conformity requirements rule for Federal
agencies applicable to Federal actions (Virginia's General Conformity
Rule) to align with the Federal General Conformity Requirements Rule.
This approval action is being taken in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on February 10, 2012, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by January 11,
2012. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0872 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0872, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0872. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is
provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Summary of General Conformity Requirements and the SIP Revision
    A. What is general conformity and how does it affect air
quality?
II. Virginia's General Conformity SIP Revision
III. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. General Requirements
    B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
    C. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. Summary of General Conformity Requirements and the SIP Revision

A. What is general conformity and how does it affect air quality?

    The intent of the general conformity requirement is to prevent the
air quality impacts of Federal actions from causing or contributing to
a violation of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or
interfering with the purpose of a SIP. Under the CAA as amended in
1990, Congress recognized that actions taken by Federal agencies could
affect state and local agencies' abilities to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. Section 176(c) of the CAA, as codified in Title 42 of the United
States Code (42 U.S.C. 7506), requires Federal agencies assure that
their actions conform to the applicable SIP for attaining and
maintaining compliance with the NAAQS. General conformity is defined to
apply to NAAQS established pursuant to section 109 of the CAA,

including NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide
(SO2). Because certain provisions of section 176(c) of the
CAA apply only to highway and mass transit funding and approval
actions, EPA published two sets of regulations to implement section
176(c) of the CAA--one set for transportation conformity and one set
for general conformity. The Federal General Conformity Requirements
Rule was published in the November 30, 1993 edition of the Federal
Register (58 FR 63214) and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations
at 40 CFR 93.150.
    EPA revised the Federal General Conformity Requirements Rule via a
final rule issued in the April 5, 2006 edition of the Federal Register
(65 FR 17003). EPA had promulgated a new NAAQS in July 1997 (62 FR
38652) that established a separate NAAQS for fine particulate smaller
than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). The prior coarse
particulate matter NAAQS promulgated in 1997 pertains to particulate
matter under 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10). EPA's 2006
revision to the Federal General Conformity Requirements Rule added
requirements for PM2.5 for the first time, including annual
emission limits of PM2.5 above which covered federal actions
in NAAQS nonattainment or maintenance areas would be subject to general
conformity applicability.
    On April 5, 2010, EPA revisited the Federal General Conformity
Requirements Rule to clarify the conformity process, authorize
innovative and flexible compliance approaches, remove outdated or
unnecessary requirements, reduce the paperwork burden, provide
transition tools for implementing new standards, address issues raised
by Federal agencies affected by the rules, and provide a better
explanation of conformity regulations and policies. EPA's April 2010
revised rule simplified state SIP requirements for general conformity,
eliminating duplicative general conformity provisions codified at 40
CFR part 93 subpart B and 40 CFR part 51, subpart W. Finally, the April
2010 revision updated Federal General Conformity Requirements Rule to
reflect changes to governing laws passed by Congress since EPA's 1993
rule. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) passed by Congress in 1995
contains a provision eliminating the CAA requirement for states to
adopt general conformity SIPs. As a result of SAFETEA-LU, EPA's April
2010 rule eliminated the Federal regulatory requirement for states to
adopt and submit general conformity SIPs, instead making submission of
a general conformity SIP a state option.

II. Virginia's General Conformity SIP Revision

    On July, 1, 2011, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of Virginia's General
Conformity Rule, Revision F10 to the Virginia Administrative Code
(codified at 9VAC5 Chapter 160, with an effective date of March 2,
2011). The purpose of Virginia's SIP revision is to update the
Commonwealth's General Conformity Rule to include new Federal general
conformity requirements promulgated on July 17, 2006 (71 FR 40420) and
on April 5, 2010 (75 FR 17254), described above.
    Virginia's General Conformity Rule (9 VAC5 Chapter 160), adopted on
December 17, 2010 and effective March 2, 2011 makes numerous changes to
the prior, SIP-approved version of the Virginia General Conformity rule
(effective January 1, 1998). Specifically, these changes include:
    a. Modification of section 5-160-20--Definitions to add the terms
``applicability analysis,'' ``confidential business information
(CBI),'' ``conformity determination,'' ``conformity evaluation,''
``continuing program responsibility,'' ``continuous program to
implement,'' ``emissions inventory,'' ``mitigation measure,''
``restricted information,'' and ``take or state federal action;''
    b. Modification of section 5-160-20--Definitions of the terms
``applicable implementation plan,'' ``areawide air quality modeling
analysis,'' ``direct emissions,'' ``emissions budgets,'' ``EPA,''
``Federal Clean Air Act,'' ``indirect emissions,'' ``local air quality
modeling analysis,'' ``maintenance area,'' ``metropolitan planning
organization,'' ``new source review (NSR) program,'' ``precursors of a
criteria pollutant,'' and ``reasonably foreseeable emissions;''
    c. Modification of section 5-160-20--Definitions to delete the
terms ``emissions that a Federal agency has a continuing program
responsibility for'' and ``regionally significant action;''
    d. Modification of section 5-160-30--Applicability to reflect that
areas newly designated nonattainment for a NAAQS are subject to
conformity one year after the nonattainment effective date; and adds
applicability provisions for PM2.5 nonattainment areas (with
respect to de minimus applicability limits of SO2, nitrogen
oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and ammonia
emissions); and makes miscellaneous updates to Chapter-160-30--
Applicability to reflect the August 2010 revised Federal General
Conformity Rule;
    e. Modification of section 5-160-110--General to remove outdated
provisions;
    f. Retitling and modification of Chapter 160-120 to reflect updated
cross-references and changes in terminology;
    g. Modification of section 5-160-130--Reporting Requirements to
reflect to add a section on restricted information and CBI provisions
and to add cross-references to that new section;
    h. Modification of section 5-160-140--Public Participation to add a
new paragraph E addressing treatment of restricted information and CBI,
and to add cross-references to that new section;
    i. Retitling and modification of section 5-160-150 to update
provisions for reevaluation of conformity and to update or remove
outdated provisions;
    j. Modification of section 5-160-160--Criteria for Determining
Conformity of General Federal Actions to update cross references; to
allow emissions from the action to be accounted for in a reasonable
progress milestone or facility-wide emissions budget; and to allow
direct and indirect emissions from a nonattainment or maintenance area
to be offset from a nearby area of equal or higher classification,
provided emissions from that area contributed to violations in the area
of the action; and added language committing the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) to update its SIP within 18 months of a
conformity demonstration based on a commitment by the Commonwealth to
include emissions from the action in the SIP;
    k. Modification of section 5-160-170--Procedures for Conformity
Demonstrations to make miscellaneous minor corrections and to update
outdated provisions; and to modify the cases for which air quality
modeling analysis apply;
    l. Modification of section 5-160-180--Mitigation of Air Quality
Impacts to update cross-references;
    m. Addition of section 5-160-181--Conformity Evaluation for Federal
Installations With Facility-Wide Emission Budgets to facilitate the use
of facility-wide emissions budgets in evaluating conformity;
    n. Addition of section 5-160-182--Emissions Beyond the Time Period
Covered by the Applicable Implementation Plan to address how Virginia
treats Federal agencies that demonstrate conformity for an action

that causes emissions beyond the time period covered by the SIP;
    o. addition of section 5-160-183--Timing of Offsets and Mitigation
Measures to address timing of offsets and mitigation with respect to a
subject federal action, in that such mitigation and offsets are to
occur at the same time as the project emission increases; or in the
alternative where offsets or mitigation are non-contemporaneous with
the action, that said reductions be greater than the resultant emission
increases at least as great as applicable NSR ratios for the area; and
that the time period for such alternative offset or mitigation
schedules not exceed two times the project period; and that such non-
contemporaneous offsets shall not cause or contribute to a new
violation of, increase the severity of, or delay timely attainment of
any NAAQS;
    p. Addition of section 5-160-184--Inter-Precursor Mitigation
Measures and Offsets to allow the use of inter-precursor offset and
mitigation measures, where they are allowed by VADEQ under the approved
SIP, technically justified, and have a demonstrated benefit;
    q. Addition of section 5-160-185--Early Emission Reduction Credit
Programs at Federal Facilities and Installation Subject to Federal
Oversight to allow the creation of emissions credits prior to the
project (meeting VA DEQ specified requirements) that may then serve as
mitigation or offsets for demonstrating conformity instead of being
included as part of the baseline emissions analysis for the project;
and
    r. Repeal of section 5-160-200, which is no longer relevant.
    Virginia's prior General Conformity Rule (9VAC5 Chapter 160,
effective January 1, 1998) was approved by EPA as part of the Virginia
SIP via a final rule published on January 7, 2003 (68 FR 663).
Virginia's July 1, 2011 SIP revision that is the subject of this action
supersedes the prior approved Virginia SIP.

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

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

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA has reviewed Virginia's July 1, 2011 SIP revision and found the
Commonwealth's SIP to be in compliance with section 176(c) of the CAA
and with the requirements of the Federal General Conformity
Requirements Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93, subpart B. Virginia's
SIP serves to reduce the impact of Federal actions (not otherwise
subject to transportation conformity, which is addressed under a
separate Virginia SIP revision), and will prevent subject Federal
actions from causing or contributing to a new violation of a NAAQS, or
in interfering with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS or otherwise
interfering with the Virginia SIP.
    Virginia's July 1, 2011 SIP revision meets the requirements set
forth in section 110 of the CAA with respect to adoption and submission
of SIP revisions. The approval of Virginia's general conformity SIP
revision will strengthen the Virginia SIP and will assist the
Commonwealth in complying with Federal NAAQS.
    Therefore, EPA is approving Virginia's revision to its general
conformity SIP. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal
because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no
adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are
filed. This rule will be effective on February 10, 2012 without further
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 11, 2012. If EPA
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an
amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may
be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

 B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 10, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking.
    This action to approve Virginia's general conformity SIP revision
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 29, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 40 CFR part 52 continues to read as
follows:

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

Subpart VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended under
Chapter 160 by:
0
a. Revising the chapter title;
0
b. Removing the two existing entries for section 5-160-20.
0
c. Adding a new entry for section 5-160-20 in numerical order.
0
d. Revising the entries for sections 5-160-30 and 5-160-110.
0
e. Revising the entry for section 5-160-120.
0
f. Revising the entries for sections 5-160-130 and 5-160-140.
0
g. Revising the entries for sections 5-160-150 and 5-160-160.
0
h. Revising the entries for section 5-160-170 and 5-160-180.
0
i. Adding new entries for sections 5-160-181, 5-160-182, 5-160-183, 5-
160-184, and 5-160-185 in numerical order.
0
j. Removing the entry for section 5-160-200.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State                            Explanation [former SIP
     State citation           Title/subject      effective date  EPA approval date            citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
9 VAC 5, Chapter 160 General Conformity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Part I General Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
        5-160-20         Terms defined.........          3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   Number of terms added--10.
                                                                  page number       Number of terms revised--11.
                                                                  where the         Number of Terms deleted--2.
                                                                  document begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Part II General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-160-30...............  Applicability.........          3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                                                                  page number
                                                                  where the
                                                                  document begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Part III Criteria and Procedures for Making Conformity Determinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-160-110..............  General...............          3/2/11  12/12/2011         ............................
                                                                  [Insert page
                                                                  number where the
                                                                  document begins].
5-160-120..............  Federal agency                  3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                          conformity                              page number
                          responsibility.                         where the
                                                                  document begins].
5-160-130..............  Reporting requirements          3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                                                                  page number
                                                                  where the
                                                                  document begins].
5-160-140..............  Public participation..          3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                                                                  page number
                                                                  where the
                                                                  document begins].
5-160-150..............  Reevaluation of                 3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                          conformity.                             page number
                                                                  where the
                                                                  document begins].
5-160-160..............  Criteria for                    3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                          determining                             page number
                          conformity of general                   where the
                          conformity actions.                     document begins].
5-160-170..............  Procedures for                  3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                          conformity                              page number
                          determinations.                         where the
                                                                  document begins].
5-160-180..............  Mitigation of air               3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                          quality impacts.                        page number
                                                                  where the
                                                                  document begins].
5-160-181..............  Conformity evaluation           3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                          for federal                             page number
                          installations with                      where the
                          facility-wide                           document begins].
                          emission budgets.
5-160-182..............  Emissions beyond the            3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                          time period covered                     page number
                          by the applicable                       where the
                          implementation plan.                    document begins].
5-160-183..............  Timing of offsets and           3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                          mitigation measures.                    page number
                                                                  where the
                                                                  document begins].
5-160-184..............  Inter-precursor                 3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                          mitigation measures                     page number
                          and offsets.                            where the
                                                                  document begins].
5-160-185..............  Early emission                  3/2/11  12/12/11 [Insert   ............................
                          reduction credit                        page number
                          programs at federal                     where the
                          facilities and                          document begins].
                          installation subject
                          to federal oversight.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-31664 Filed 12-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 65)]
[Notices]
[Page 16781]
[DOCID:fr05ap07-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-115-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Texas Eastern Incremental
Market Expansion II Project

March 30, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the
natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Texas Eastern Transmission,
LP (Texas Eastern) in the above-referenced docket.
    The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the
proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of Texas Eastern's proposed Texas Eastern
Incremental Market Expansion II Project (TIME II). The TIME II project
would involve construction, replacement, and operation of facilities by
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Pickaway and Monroe
Counties, Ohio and Somerset, Bedford, Franklin, Bucks, Fayette, and
Adams Counties, Pennsylvania. The purpose of the facilities is to
provide up to 150,000 dekatherms per day of new transportation service
to the New Jersey market area.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited
number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8371.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state, and local
agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, newspapers,
and parties to this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure
consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is
important that we receive your comments before the date specified
below.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the

link to the User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to
create a free account which can be created by clicking on ``Sign-up.''
    If you are filing written comments, please carefully follow these
instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and
properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your comments to:
Philis J. Posey, Acting Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
     Reference Docket No. CP06-115-000;
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the
Gas Branch 1, PJ-11.1; and
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before April 30, 2007.
    Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to
make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to
become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene
pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6314 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P