[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63234-63240]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25301]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1015; FRL-9739-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North Carolina
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006
Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve in part and
conditionally approve in part portions of the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submissions, submitted by the State of North Carolina, through
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR), Division
of Air Quality (DAQ), as demonstrating that the State meets the SIP
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
the Act) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a
SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. North Carolina certified in two separate
submissions that its SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented,
enforced, and maintained in North Carolina (hereafter referred to as
``infrastructure submissions''). With the exception of elements
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i), 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J), North
Carolina's infrastructure submissions, provided to EPA on April 1,
2008, and September 21, 2009, address all the required infrastructure
elements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
With respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and
110(a)(2)(J), EPA is conditionally approving these requirements.

DATES: This rule will be effective on November 15, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-1015. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
lakeman.sean@ epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. This Action
III. EPA's Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA require states to address basic SIP requirements,
including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure
attainment and maintenance for that new NAAQS. On July 18, 1997 (62 FR
38652), EPA promulgated a new annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on
October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 24, 2012, EPA proposed to approve North
Carolina's April 1, 2008, and September 21, 2009, infrastructure
submissions for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. See 77 FR 43196. A summary of the background for today's final
action is provided below. See EPA's July 24, 2012, proposed rulemaking
at 77 FR 43196 for more detail.
    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. The data and
analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits
the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program
elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions
in connection with previous PM NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As already mentioned, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the
subject of this final rulemaking are listed below\1\ and in EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' and
September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the time the nonattainment
area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA, and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's final rulemaking
does not address infrastructure elements related to section
110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment plan requirements of section
110(a)(2)(C).

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

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Today's final rule does not address element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
(Interstate Transport) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring system.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency power.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(I): Areas designated nonattainment and meet the
applicable requirements of part D.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This requirement was inadvertently omitted from EPA's
October 2, 2007, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' but
as mentioned above is not relevant to today's final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.

II. This Action

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and submit
a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by the EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. North Carolina certified that the North
Carolina SIP contains provisions that ensure the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and
maintained in North Carolina.
    With the exceptions of elements 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 110(a)(2)(J) related to PSD requirements, EPA is
taking final action to approve North Carolina's infrastructure
submissions as demonstrating that the State's implementation plan meets
portions of the section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for both
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. North Carolina
submitted a letter to EPA on July 10, 2012, to address certain
outstanding requirements related to the PM2.5 standard for
its PSD program and committing to providing the necessary SIP revision
to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) and 110(a)(2)(J) PSD
requirements for which the SIP is currently deficient. This letter of
commitment meets the requirements of section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7410(k)(4), and as such, EPA is today finalizing its proposed
action to conditional approve these elements. See EPA's July 24, 2012,
proposed rulemaking at 77 FR 43196 for more detail. If North Carolina
fails to submit these revisions by October 16, 2013, today's
conditional approval will automatically become a disapproval on that
date and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not required
to propose the finding of disapproval. If the conditional approval is
converted to a disapproval, the final disapproval triggers the Federal
Implementation Plan requirement under section 110(c). However, if the
State meets its commitment within the applicable timeframe, the
conditionally approved submission will remain a part of the SIP until
EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new submittal. If
EPA disapproves the new submittal, today's conditionally approved
submittal will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA approves the
new submittal, North Carolina's infrastructure SIP will be fully
approved, with the exceptions noted above, and those approved elements
will replace the relevant conditionally-approved elements in the SIP.
    In addition, EPA is today relying upon an earlier commitment by
North Carolina to address the CAA section 128(a)(1) and (2)
requirements in order to conditionally approve its 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). North Carolina's earlier commitment, which
was made in connection with the State's 2008 8-hour Ozone
infrastructure SIP submission, committed the State to addressing CAA
section 128(a)(1) and (2) requirements by submitting a SIP revision to
EPA to address these requirements by February 2, 2013. As the
underlying requirements of section 128 are the same for purposes of the
2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS and the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA is today relying upon this earlier
commitment to conditionally approve the State's 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
infrastructure SIPs for purposes of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. As with the conditional approvals for the other
elements discussed above, if the State fails to submit this revision by
February 6, 2013, a final conditional approval would then automatically
become a disapproval on that date and EPA will issue a finding of
disapproval.
    With the exception of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), related to interstate
transport, EPA is today taking final action to determine that North
Carolina's infrastructure submissions, provided to EPA on April 1,
2008, and September 21, 2009, and the January 11, 2012, and July 3,
2012, letters of commitment address all the required infrastructure
elements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA intends to act on North Carolina's outstanding section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Response to Comments

    EPA received adverse comments from the Sierra Club on the July 24,
2012, proposed rulemaking to approve North Carolina's April 1, 2008,
and September 21, 2009, infrastructure submissions as meeting the
requirements of certain sections of 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for
the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. A summary of
the comments and EPA's response are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that North Carolina's SIP does
not contain the requisite enforceable limits for PM2.5, and
therefore, EPA cannot approve the State's infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(A).
    The Commenter asserts that North Carolina's SIP does not
distinguish between filterable and condensable PM to demonstrate that
condensable PM2.5 emissions are limited and monitored. In
addition, the Commenter states that North Carolina regulations do not
currently provide adequate enforceable limitations for PM2.5
emissions from individual sources. In support of this position, the
Commenter notes that the North Carolina SIP addresses emissions of
particulate matter generally, and does not distinguish between
PM10 and PM2.5. The Commenter also references the
particulate matter maximum emission rates for two coal-fired power
plants by way of example and argues that because test methods, such as
Reference Test Method 5, do not test for condensable PM, as a practical
matter, the SIP does not currently contain PM2.5 emissions
limits for sources that have not recently undergone new source review.
The Commenter asserts that, as a result, the SIP does not ensure
specific sources in North Carolina maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS
in attainment and unclassifiable areas. The Commenter concludes that
this constitutes a SIP deficiency germane to EPA's determination
respecting the sufficiency of the State's infrastructure SIP for
purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A).
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's contention that the
State's

infrastructure SIP submission is not approvable with respect to section
110(a)(2)(A) because it does not contain adequate enforceable emissions
limitations on PM2.5.
    With respect to the Commenter's specific concerns about the
adequacy of emissions limitations at stationary sources, the Commenter
is incorrect with respect both to the scope of what is germane to an
action on an infrastructure SIP and with respect to when certain
regulatory requirements for stationary sources became operative. This
comment pertains to EPA's action on an infrastructure SIP, which must
meet the general structural requirements described in section
110(a)(2)(A). Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA reads as follows:

    Each implementation plan submitted by a State under this Act
shall be adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public
hearing. Each such plan shall include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques
(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and
auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables
for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of this Act.

    The Commenter seems to believe that in the context of an
infrastructure SIP submission, section 110(a)(2)(A) explicitly requires
that a state adopt all possible new enforceable emission limits,
control measures and other means developed specifically for attaining
and maintaining the new NAAQS within the state.
    EPA does not believe that this is a reasonable interpretation of
the provision with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions. Rather,
EPA believes that different requirements for SIPs become due at
different times depending on the precise applicable requirements in the
CAA. For example, some state regulations are required pursuant to CAA
section 172(b), as part of an attainment demonstration for areas
designated as nonattainment for the standard. The timing of such an
attainment demonstration would be after promulgation of a NAAQS, after
completion of designations, and after the development of the applicable
nonattainment plans. The Commenter seems to believe that EPA should
disapprove a states infrastructure SIP if the state has not already
developed all the substantive emissions limitations that may ultimately
be required for all purposes, such as attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS as part of an attainment plan for a designated nonattainment
area.
    The Commenter focuses upon the adequacy of specific stationary
source maximum emission rates in the North Carolina SIP--specifically
the existing emissions rates for the Allen and Asheville coal-fired
power plants provided at 15A N.C. Admin. Code 02D.0536--to support its
argument that the SIP does not require adequate enforceable emissions
limitations for PM2.5 for existing sources. As described
above, for purposes of approving North Carolina's infrastructure
submittal as it relates to section 110(a)(2)(A), EPA's evaluation is
limited to whether the State has adopted, as necessary and appropriate,
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures to meet
applicable structural requirements of the CAA. Today's action does not
involve source specific evaluations of particular emissions limits or
whether the state has correctly imposed emissions limitations on each
stationary source. Moreover, EPA disagrees that the Allen and Asheville
coal-fired power plant examples cited by the Commenter demonstrate a
SIP deficiency germane to an EPA approval action respecting
infrastructure 110(a)(2)(A) requirements. The Commenter has not
identified how these maximum emissions limits, which were approved into
the SIP on February 14, 1996, demonstrate that North Carolina has not
sufficiently addressed the treatment of condensables in the State
consistent with EPA guidance and the requirements of the CAA. In the
implementation regulations for the PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA
separately authorized states to elect not to address condensable
emissions in their air pollution programs until on or after January 1,
2011.\6\ Thus, the State was not required to address condensables at
the time these maximum emission rates were incorporated into the SIP.
The State's compliance with what EPA authorized with respect to
condensables is not grounds for disapproval of the state's
infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program
for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),
73 FR 28321 (May 16, 2008); 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49(vi); 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, the fact that existing sources which have not gone
through new source review in recent years are not subject to
PM2.5 emissions limits is not grounds for disapproving
section 110(a)(2)(A). As referenced above, consistent with EPA
authorization, states may elect not to address condensable emissions in
their air pollution programs until on or after January 1, 2011. The
fact that existing sources would not be subject to such requirements
prior to this applicability date is not a grounds upon which to
disapprove the infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(A). EPA believes that the better approach to ensure that
sources are evaluated in due course for condensable emissions as
required by federal regulations after January 1, 2011, is through
revisions to the PSD program consistent with the requirements of
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). As discussed in the proposal
for today's action, EPA is today conditionally approving North
Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission as it relates to the section
110(a)(2)(C) and (J) PSD requirements. This conditional approval is
based upon a commitment by the State to make a submission to meet
current PSD program requirements, including proper evaluation of
condensable emissions on an ongoing basis, in future regulatory
actions, such as PSD permits. In addition, EPA notes that as a matter
of State law, North Carolina has already elected to incorporate by
reference EPA's own regulations relevant to the May 16, 2008,
PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule.\7\ Thus, as a practical
matter, EPA believes that sources will in fact be evaluated for
condensable emissions in the interim prior to the SIP submission from
the State to meet the conditional approval requirement for section
110(a)(2)(C) and (J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See North Carolina's PSD regulations at 15A NC Admin. Code
2D.0530, incorporates by reference 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi), which
requires that condensable emissions be accounted for in
applicability in determinations and in establishing emissions
limitations for PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of section 110(a)(2)(A), and for purposes of an
infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that the proper inquiry is
whether the state has met the basic structural SIP requirements
appropriate at the point in time EPA is acting upon it. As stated in
EPA's proposed approval for this rule, to meet section 110(a)(2)(A),
North Carolina submitted a list of existing emission reduction measures
in the SIP that control PM emissions. These include all the required
measures previously adopted for the control of PM. The Commenter
identifies a number of ways in which it believes that the State's
implementation plan fails to meet such current requirements, but EPA
concludes that the Commenter has not identified any deficiency that
justifies disapproval of the infrastructure SIP submission in this
action.
    Comment 2: The Commenter states that North Carolina's SIP does not
meet

the requirements of CAA section110(a)(2)(D)(ii) because the North
Carolina regulations cited in the proposed rule do not make any mention
of notification requirements and fail to make any other reference to
interstate or international transport.
    Response 2: This comment pertains to infrastructure requirements
described in section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the CAA. Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the CAA requires that ``each implementation plan
submitted by a State under this Act shall * * * contain adequate
provisions * * * insuring compliance with applicable requirements of
sections [126] and [115] * * * relating to interstate and international
pollution.'' EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that none of
the state regulations referenced in the proposed rule make any mention
of this notification requirement, nor make any other reference to
interstate or international transport issues.'' Specifically, NCAC
2D.0530, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, states that ``[a]
permit application subject to this Regulation shall be processed in
accordance with the procedures and requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q).''
40 CFR 51.166(q) requires that ''a copy of the notice of public comment
to the applicant, the Administrator and to officials and agencies
having cognizance over the location where the proposed construction
would occur as follows: Any other State or local air pollution control
agencies, the chief executives of the city and county where the source
would be located; any comprehensive regional land use planning agency,
and any State, Federal Land Manager, or Indian Governing body whose
lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification.''
The Commenter has not provided how the above-described notification
requirements fail to address the requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). In addition, the Commenter does not identify any
submittal required by section 110(a)(2)(A) that is overdue or
deficient.
    The Commenter also alleges deficiencies with respect to section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) and section 115 international transport requirements,
without articulating any specific reason. EPA does not believe that a
state has any SIP requirements with respect to section 115 unless EPA
has previously made a finding that emissions from the state cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country. EPA has made no
such finding with respect to North Carolina, and thus the
infrastructure SIP of that state need not contain or reference any
provisions to address that requirement substantively.
    Comment 3: The Commenter states that, although EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve North Carolina's infrastructure submissions with
respect to sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D) and (J), North Carolina's SIP
must include PM2.5 increments and significant emission rates
under the PSD Program before EPA can fully approve the State's PM
infrastructure submissions. The Commenter also states that any future
submission by North Carolina that includes the significant impact
levels for PM2.5 cannot be approved by EPA for the reasons
the Commenter articulated in Sierra Club v. EPA, 10-1413 (DC Circuit).
    Response 3: EPA first notes that the Commenter mischaracterizes the
scope of EPA's proposed conditional approval of North Carolina's
infrastructure submissions. As described in the proposed rule for
today's action, EPA only proposed to conditionally approve sections
110(a)(2)(C) and (J) as they relate to PSD requirements, and section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). See 77 FR 43196. EPA did not propose any action
respecting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in the August 24, 2012 proposed
rule, and proposed approval of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requirements.
See 77 FR 43198, note 3; 43202.
    With respect to the Commenter's statements as they relate to EPA's
proposed conditional approval of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) related
to PSD requirements, EPA agrees that presently the North Carolina SIP
does not contain the requisite significant emissions rate provisions
necessary for EPA to approve these sections of the State's
infrastructure SIP submissions. As such, EPA proposed conditional
approval for sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) consistent with EPA's
authority under section 110(k)(4), and based upon a commitment by the
State to address these deficiencies within one year. As described in
section 110(k)(4), should North Carolina fail to meet its commitment to
address these deficiencies, a final conditional approval for these
elements would become a disapproval. The Commenter has failed to state
a reason why this proposed action is inconsistent with the requirements
of the CAA.
    In addition, EPA disagrees with Commenter's suggestion that EPA
must approve North Carolina's PM2.5 increments prior to
fully approving sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J). Pursuant to the 2010
PM2.5 NSR Rule and CAA section 166(b), States were not
required to submit a revised SIP addressing the PM2.5
increments until July 20, 2012. The Agency proposed action on North
Carolina's infrastructure SIP in a notice signed on July 13, 2012.\8\
Therefore, on the date that the proposed rule was signed by the Agency,
the PM2.5 increments were not required to be included in the
North Carolina SIP in order for North Carolina to meet the PSD
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Although the notice was published by the Federal Register on
July 24, 2012, the notice was signed by the Regional Administrator
on July 13, 2012, before the statutory deadline for submission of
the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5 increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commenter's concerns relate to the timing of agency action on
collateral, yet related, SIP submissions. These concerns highlight an
important overarching question that the EPA has to confront when
assessing the various infrastructure SIP submittals addressed in the
proposed rule: how to proceed when the timing and sequencing of
multiple related SIP submissions impact the ability of the State and
the Agency to address certain substantive issues in the infrastructure
SIP submission in a reasonable fashion.
    It is appropriate for EPA to take into consideration the timing and
sequence of related SIP submissions as part of determining what it is
reasonable to expect a state to have addressed in an infrastructure SIP
submission for a NAAQS at the time when EPA acts on such submission.
EPA has historically interpreted section 110(a)(2)(C) and section
110(a)(2)(J) to require EPA to assess a State's infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to the then-applicable and federally
enforceable PSD regulations required to be included in a State's
implementation plan at the time EPA takes action on the SIP. However,
EPA does not consider it reasonable to interpret section 110(a)(2)(C)
and section 110(a)(2)(J) to require EPA to propose to disapprove a
State's infrastructure SIP submissions because the State had not yet,
at the time of proposal, made a submission that was not yet due for the
2010 PM2.5 NSR Rule. To adopt a different approach by which
EPA could not act on an infrastructure SIP, or at least could not
approve an infrastructure SIP, whenever there was any impending
revision to the SIP required by another collateral rulemaking action
would result in regulatory gridlock and make it impracticable or
impossible for EPA to act on infrastructure SIPs if EPA is in the
process of revising collateral PSD regulations. EPA believes that such
an outcome would be an unreasonable reading of the statutory process
for the

infrastructure SIPs contemplated in section 110(a)(1) and (2).
    EPA acknowledges that it is important that these additional PSD
program revisions be evaluated and approved into the State's SIP in
accordance with the CAA, and EPA intends to address the
PM2.5 increments in a subsequent rulemaking.
    Finally, EPA notes that the Commenter's statements regarding future
EPA action on potential North Carolina PM2.5 significant
impact level submittals are not relevant to today's action, which as
described in the proposed rule, is not approving any specific rule, but
rather proposing that North Carolina's already-approved SIP meets--or
in the case of the elements proposed for conditional approval, will
meet--certain CAA requirements.
    Comment 4: The Commenter states that EPA cannot approve future
North Carolina submissions to meet CAA section 110(2)(D)(i) interstate
transport and visibility obligations if it relies on the now vacated
Cross State Air Pollution Rule to satisfy such obligations.
    Response 4: As described in the proposed rule for today's action,
EPA is not taking any action with respect to North Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submissions related to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
Comments related to EPA action on SIP submissions from North Carolina
to address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), including the
interference with visibility prong in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are
not relevant to today's action.

IV. Final Action

    As already described, North Carolina has addressed the elements of
the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements pursuant to EPA's October 2,
2007, guidance to ensure that 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in
North Carolina. EPA is taking final action to approve in part, and
conditionally approve in part, North Carolina`s April 1, 2008, and
September 21, 2009, submissions, with noted exceptions, for 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because these submissions are
consistent with section 110 of the CAA. Today's action is not approving
any specific rule, but rather making a determination that North
Carolina`s already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country, and EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 17, 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. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770(e) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved North Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        State       EPA approval       Federal Register
            Provision              effective date       date               citation              Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Area, North Carolina             1/1/2002      12/27/2002  67 FR 78986.              ...................
 Interagency Transportation
 Conformity Memorandum of
 Agreement.
Durham-Chapel Hill Interagency           1/1/2002      12/27/2002  67 FR 78986.              ...................
 Transportation Conformity
 Memorandum of Agreement.
Winston-Salem Interagency               1/01/2002      12/27/2002  67 FR 78986.              ...................
 Transportation Conformity
 Memorandum of Agreement.
High Point Interagency                  1/01/2002      12/27/2002  67 FR 78986.              ...................
 Transportation Conformity
 Memorandum of Agreement.
Greensboro Interagency                  1/01/2002      12/27/2002  67 FR 78986.              ...................
 Transportation Conformity
 Memorandum of Agreement.
Gaston, North Carolina                   1/1/2002        12/27/02  67 FR 78986.              ...................
 Interagency Transportation
 Conformity Memorandum of
 Agreement.
Mecklenburg-Union Interagency            8/7/2003       9/15/2003  68 FR 53887.              ...................
 Transportation Conformity
 Memorandum of Agreement.
10 Year Maintenance Plan Update          6/4/2004       9/20/2004  69 FR 56163.              ...................
 for the Raleigh/Durham Area.
10 Year Maintenance Plan Update          6/4/2004       9/20/2004  69 FR 56163.              ...................
 for the Greensboro/Winston-Salem/
 High Point Area.
Attainment Demonstration of the        12/21/2004       9/21/2005  70 FR 48874.              ...................
 Mountain, Unifour, Triad and
 Fayetteville Early Action
 Compact Areas.
Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and            3/18/05         3/24/06  71 FR 14817.              ...................
 Winston-Salem Carbon Monoxide
 Second 10-Year Maintenance Plan.
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for       6/19/2006       11/6/2006  71 FR 64891.              ...................
 the Rocky Mount, North Carolina
 area (Edgecombe and Nash
 Counties).
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan for        6/7/2007      12/26/2007  72 FR 72948.              ...................
 the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill,
 North Carolina area (Durham,
 Franklin, Granville, Johnston,
 Orange, Person and Wake Counties
 in their entireties, and
 Baldwin, Center, New Hope and
 Williams Townships in Chatham
 County).
1-Hour Ozone Maintenance plan            2/4/2008        4/8/2008  73 FR 18963.              ...................
 revision for the Greensboro/
 Winston-Salem/High Point area
 (Davidson, Forsyth, and Guilford
 counties and a portion of Davie
 County).
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for       7/24/2009      12/07/2009  74 FR 63995.              ...................
 the Great Smoky Mountains
 National Park Area.
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance          12/18/2009      11/18/2011  76 FR 71452.              ...................
 Plan for the Hickory, North
 Carolina Area (Catawba County).
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance          12/22/2010      11/18/2011  76 FR 71452.              ...................
 Plan for the Hickory, North
 Carolina Area--MOVES Update.
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance          12/18/2009      11/18/2011  76 FR 71455.              ...................
 Plan for the Greensboro, North
 Carolina Area (Davidson and
 Guilford Counties).
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance          12/22/2010      11/18/2011  76 FR 71455.              ...................
 Plan for the Greensboro, North
 Carolina Area--MOVES Update.

North Carolina 110(a)(1) and (2)       12/12/2007        2/6/2012  77 FR 5703.               ...................
 Infrastructure Requirements for
 the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.
1997 8-Hour Ozone 110(a)(1)             4/13/2011       3/26/2012  76 FR 3611.               ...................
 Maintenance Plan for the Triad
 Area.
Supplement to 110(a)(1)                 5/18/2011       3/26/2012  76 FR 3611.               ...................
 Maintenance Plan for the Triad
 Area.
North Carolina portion of bi-          11/12/2009        5/4/2012  77 FR 26441.              ...................
 state Charlotte; 1997 8-Hour
 Ozone 2002 Base Year Emissions
 Inventory.
Regional Haze Plan...............      11/17/2007       6/27/2012  77 FR 38185.              ...................
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure         4/1/2008      10/16/2012  [Insert citation of       With the exception
 Requirements for 1997 Fine                                         publication].             of section
 Particulate Matter National                                                                  110(a)(2)(D)(i).
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                               With respect to
                                                                                sections
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C)
                                                                                related to PSD
                                                                                requirements,
                                                                                110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
                                                                                and 110(a)(2)(J)
                                                                                related to PSD
                                                                                requirements, EPA
                                                                                conditionally
                                                                                approved these
                                                                                requirements.
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure        9/21/2009      10/16/2012  [Insert citation of       With the exception
 Requirements for 2006 Fine                                         publication].             of section
 Particulate Matter National                                                                  110(a)(2)(D)(i).
 Ambient Air Quality Standards.                                                               With respect to
                                                                                sections
                                                                                110(a)(2)(C)
                                                                                related to PSD
                                                                                requirements,
                                                                                110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
                                                                                and 110(a)(2)(J)
                                                                                related to PSD
                                                                                requirements, EPA
                                                                                conditionally
                                                                                approved these
                                                                                requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.1773 is amended by redesignating the existing text in
Sec.  52.1773 as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1773  Conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (b) North Carolina submitted a letter to EPA on July 10, 2012, with
a commitment to address the State Implementation Plan deficiencies
regarding requirements of Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(2)(C) and
110(a)(2)(J) as they both relate to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards. EPA is conditionally approving North
Carolina's commitment to address outstanding requirements promulgated
in the New Source Review (NSR) PM2.5 Rule related to the
PM2.5 standard for their PSD program and committing to
providing the necessary SIP revision to address these NSR
PM2.5 Rule requirements. If North Carolina fails to submit
these revisions by October 16, 2013, the conditional approval will
automatically become a disapproval on that date and EPA will issue a
finding of disapproval.

[FR Doc. 2012-25301 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 18 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 4894]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

January 20, 2011.

Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XL...............  Project No. 13746-000
FFP Missouri 4, LLC.......................  Project No. 13750-000
Allegheny 4 Hydro, LLC....................  Project No. 13776-000
Three Rivers Hydro, LLC...................  Project No. 13782-000

    On May 18, 2010, at 8:30 a.m., the Commission received four
preliminary permit applications for proposed projects to be located at
the Allegheny River Lock and Dam No. 4 located on the Allegheny River
in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.\1\ The applications were filed by
Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XL, for Project No. 13746-000, FFP Missouri 4,
LLC, for Project No. 13750-000, Allegheny 4 Hydro, LLC, for Project No.
13776-000, and Three Rivers Hydro, LLC, for Project No. 13782-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission is open each day from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
except Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. 18 CFR 375.101(c) (2010).
The applications were filed between 5 p.m. on Monday May 17, 2010,
and 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday May 18, 2010. Under the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure, any document received after regular
business hours is considered filed at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular
business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2) (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where all permit applicants are municipalities or all permit
applicants are non-municipalities, and no applicant's plans are better
adapted than the others' to develop, conserve, and utilize in the
public interest the water resources of a region, the Commission issues
a permit to the applicant who filed first in time.\2\ In this case,
because four applications from entities not claiming municipal
preference are deemed filed at the same time, the Commission will
conduct a random tie breaker to determine priority. In the event that
the Commission concludes that no applicant's plans are better adapted
than the others, priority will be determined accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2010). See, e.g., BPUS Generation Development,
LLC, 126 FERC ] 61,132 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 27, 2011, at 10 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of
the Commission, or her designee, will, by random drawing, determine the
filing priority for the four applicants identified in this notice. The
drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC
20426. The results of the drawing will be recorded by the Secretary or
her designee. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary
announcing the results of the drawing.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-1712 Filed 1-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8408]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03973]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0077; FRL-9974-50--Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Approval of Texas Motor Vehicle Rule Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions
submitted by the State of Texas that affect the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning Texas' motor vehicle air pollution
rules and retail gasoline dispensing labeling requirements for El Paso.
The revisions are non-substantive in nature and do not affect
implementation of federal requirements.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before March 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0077,
at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected]. For
additional information on how to submit comments see the detailed
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located
in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Walser,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives
relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 22, 2018.
Anne Idsal,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2018-03973 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 12447]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04538]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13806-012]

5440 Hydor, Inc.; Ampersand Brooklyn Dam Hydro, LLC; Notice of
Transfer of Exemption

    1. On January 24, 2022, 5440 Hydro, Inc., exemptee for the 600-
Kilowatt Brooklyn Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13806, filed a letter
notifying the Commission that the project was transferred from 5440
Hydro, Inc. to Ampersand Brooklyn Dam Hydro, LLC. The exemption from
licensing was originally issued on August 14, 2015.\1\ The project is
located on the Upper Ammonoosuc River, Coos County, New Hampshire. The
transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 5440 Hydro, Inc., 152 FERC ] 62,113 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Ampersand Brooklyn Dam Hydro, LLC is now the exemptee of the
Brooklyn Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13806. All correspondence must
be forwarded to: Mr. Amit Pinjani, Asset Manager, Ampersand Brooklyn
Dam Hydro, LLC, 717 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 1A, Boston, MA 02111, Email:
[email protected].

    Dated: February 25, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04538 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68445-68447]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28291]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0295]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration Vessels, Puget
Sound, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zones around
the POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER, two vessels associated with
Royal Dutch Shell's (Shell) Arctic oil drilling and exploration
operations, as well as any vessel actively engaged in towing or
escorting those vessels, while they are located in the U.S. Territorial
and Internal Waters of the Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone.
The safety zones created by this rule are necessary to ensure the
mutual safety of all waterways users including the specified vessels
and those individuals that may desire to exercise their First Amendment
rights relating to Shell's Arctic oil drilling and exploration
operations.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from November 5,
2015 through December 31, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from the date the rule was signed, October 23,
2015, through November 5, 2015.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-0295 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Kate Haseley, Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be
impracticable as the vessels at issue will be arriving in late October
and a safety zone is needed at that time to help ensure the safety of
all waterway users.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For reasons identical to those
described above, delaying the effective date until 30 days after
publication would be impracticable since the regulation is immediately
necessary to help ensure the safety of all waterway users.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish limited access areas is: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1. POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER are Shell
contracted vessels that are returning to the Puget Sound region as a
part of demobilizing from oil drilling and exploration operations in
the Arctic over the spring and summer of 2015. In the spring of 2015 a
significant amount of First Amendment activity related to Shell's
arctic activities took place in both Washington and Oregon and such
activity may occur again when the vessels are in the Puget Sound. The
previous First Amendment activity included the unauthorized boarding of
a Shell contracted vessel on the high seas by Greenpeace members, the
formation of a ``kayak flotilla'' in the Puget Sound to advocate
against Shell's operations in the region including an attempt to block
POLAR PIONEER from leaving Seattle, Washington, and the use of a
``kayak flotilla'' as well as Greenpeace members hanging from a bridge
in Portland, Oregon to prevent another Shell contracted vessel from
departing. Draft

restrictions, vessel maneuvering characteristics, and geographic/
environmental conditions may constrain the ability of large commercial
vessels, like the POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER, to maneuver in
close quarters with other vessels, particularly small craft piloted by
recreational operators. Intentional close-in interaction of these
vessels will create an increased risk of collision, grounding, or
personal injury for all parties. This safety risk to all parties and
the port itself is best addressed by mandating a minimum zone of
separation. For these reasons, the Coast Guard believes that safety
zones around the POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER, as well as any
vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels, are
necessary to ensure the safety of all waterways users.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    In this rule, the Coast Guard is establishing safety zones around
the Shell contracted vessels POLAR PIONEER and NOBLE DISCOVERER, as
well as any vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those
vessels. The safety zones are established in subsection (a) of this
temporary regulation. Per subsection (a)(1), while transiting, the
safety zone around each of the vessels will encompass all waters within
500 yards of the vessels in all directions from those vessels and any
other vessel actively engaged in towing or escorting those vessels.
Persons and/or vessels that desire to enter these safety zones must
request permission to do so from the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound
by contacting the Joint Harbor Operations Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
the on-scene Law Enforcement patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM CH 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. This rule is not a
significant regulatory action as the safety zones are limited in both
size and duration and any person and/or vessel needing to transit
through the safety zones may be allowed to do so with the permission of
the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit the affected waterways when the safety zones are
in effect. The safety zones will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, however, because the safety
zones are limited in both size and duration and any person and/or
vessel needing to transit through the safety zones may be allowed to do
so with the permission of the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of temporary safety
zones to deal with an emergency situation that

is one week or longer in duration. This rule is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of all
individuals and supports the ability to congregate and exercise First
Amendment free speech rights safely and without interfering with other
maritime traffic. Of particular note, large vessels operating in
restricted waters cannot maneuver freely, nor can they stop
immediately. As such, any First Amendment activity taking place in
immediate proximity to such vessels can quickly result in extremis.
Individuals that desire to exercise their First Amendment rights are
asked to do so with full regard to vessel traffic conditions and are
requested to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INTFORMATION
CONTACT section to coordinate their activities so that their message
can be heard, without jeopardizing the safety or security of people,
places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-302 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-302  Safety Zones; Shell Arctic Drilling/Exploration
Vessels, Puget Sound, WA.

    (a) Safety Zones--(1) Location. The following areas are designated
as safety zones: All waters within 500 yards of the following vessels
while transiting within the U.S. Territorial or Internal Waters of the
Sector Puget Sound Captain of the Port Zone as defined in 33 CFR 3.65-
10: NOBLE DISCOVERER, POLAR PIONEER, and any other vessel actively
engaged in towing or escorting those vessels.
    (2) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
subpart C of this section, no persons or vessels may enter these safety
zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his
designated representative. To request permission to enter one of these
safety zones contact the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-
6001, or the on-scene Law Enforcement patrol craft, if any, via VHF-FM
CH 16. If permission for entry into one of these safety zones is
granted, vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe navigation
and in accordance with any directions given by the Captain of the Port,
Puget Sound or his designated representative.
    (b) Dates. This rule will be enforced from October 23, 2015 through
December 31, 2015.

    Dated: October 23, 2015.
M.W. Raymond,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2015-28291 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 86 (Monday, May 4, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26359-26361]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08975]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0223]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: Monongahela River Mile Marker 76.6, Pittsburgh, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters of the Monongahela River at mile marker 76.6. The
safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by construction on a new raw
water intake, from April 27, 2020 through May 8, 2020. Entry of vessels
or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh or designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from May 4, 2020
until 7 p.m. on May 8, 2020. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from 7 a.m. on April 27, 2020 until May 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0223 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Matthew Izso, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. This safety zone
must be established by April 27, 2020 and we lack sufficient time to
provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments
before issuing this rule. The NPRM process would delay the
establishment of the safety zone until after the date of the raw water
intake construction and compromise public safety.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be
contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary
to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with raw water
intake work, which could pose a risk to the operation and waterways
users if the normal vessel traffic were to interfere with the work.
Possible hazards include risks of injury or death from near or actual
contact among working vessels and mariners traversing through the
safety zone.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Marine
Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) has determined that potential hazards
associated with raw water intake construction starting April 27, 2020,
will be a safety concern for anyone within a 20 foot radius of the work
barge. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while
the construction is being done.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. on April 27, 2020
until 7 p.m. on May 8, 2020. The safety zone will cover all navigable
waters within 20 feet of the work barge being used by personnel for the
construction of the raw water intake. Located at mile marker 76.6 on
the Monongahela River 220 feet from the opposite bank. The duration of
the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in these navigable waters while the construction is being
done. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the
operational control of USCG Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh. Persons and
vessels seeking entry into this safety zone must request permission
from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on
VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Persons and
vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must transit at their
slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful instructions of the COTP
or a designated representative. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement period for the safety zone as
well as any changes in the schedule through Broadcast Notices to
Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or Marine Safety
Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, duration,
and location of the safety zone. This rule will impact a section of the
Monongahela River from April 27, 2020 through May 8, 2020.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have
analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is
consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption
requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that will prohibit entry within 20 feet of a work barge
being used by personnel to construct a raw water intake. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0223 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0223  Safety Zone; Monongahela River, mile 76.6
Pittsburgh, PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: 20
foot radius of the Garney Construction barge, Monongahela River at mile
marker 76.6.
    (b) Effective period. This rule is effective from April 27, 2020
through May 8, 2020.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced at all times.
The Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a
designated representative will provide notice of breaks as appropriate
under paragraph (e) of this section.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh (COTP) or a
designated representative. A designated representative is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Marine Safety
Unit Pittsburgh.
    (2) Persons and vessels seeking entry into this safety zone must
request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They
may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at (412) 221-
0807.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this safety zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
instructions of the COTP or a designated representative.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public of the enforcement period for the
safety zone as well as any changes in the schedule through Broadcast
Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notices to Mariners (LNMs), and/or
Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs) as appropriate.

    Dated: April 23, 2020.
A.W. Demo,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2020-08975 Filed 5-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 205 (Monday, October 24, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 65716]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4019-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,
International Transmission Company.
    Description: International Transmission Company submits tariff
filing per 35.19a(b): ITC-Harvest E&P Refund Report to be effective N/
A.
    Filed Date: 10/11/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111011-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 01, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4119-000.
    Applicants: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Filing of Refund Report to be effective N/
A.
    Filed Date: 10/13/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111013-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 03, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4438-001.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: San Diego Gas & Electric Company submits tariff filing
per 35.17(b): Errata to SDG&E and Cogentrix Energy E&P Agreement to be
effective 10/17/2011.
    Filed Date: 10/14/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111014-5140.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 04, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-91-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., PJM Interconnection, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Duke submits revisions to the PJM OATT, OA, RAA and
TOA re the DEOK Integration to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/14/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111014-5138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 04, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-92-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc., PJM Interconnection, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Duke submits revisions to the PJM OATT, OA, RAA and
TOA re the DEOK Integration to be effective 1/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 10/14/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111014-5139.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 04, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-93-000.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Description: Commonwealth Edison Co. submits Notices of
Cancellation.
    Filed Date: 10/14/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111014-5149.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, November 04, 2011.

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

    Dated: October 17, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-27383 Filed 10-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70687-70689]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28589]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0809; FRL-9754-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Florida;
Section 128 and 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and (G) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 1997 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards;
Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA published in the Federal Register of July 30, 2012, a
final rule approving portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Florida, through the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on May 24, 2012, as
demonstrating that the State met the SIP requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or the Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). In that final rule, EPA approved Florida's
infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on May 24, 2012, which
included state statues to be incorporated into the SIP to address
infrastructure requirements regarding state boards and emergency
powers. While EPA discussed in the final rulemaking that it was taking
action to approve certain state statues into the Florida SIP to address
the state board requirements and emergency powers, EPA inadvertently
did not list these state statues in the regulatory text of the July 30,
2012, final rule. Accordingly, this rulemaking corrects that
inadvertent regulatory text omission.

DATES: Effective November 27, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This action corrects an inadvertent omission
in the regulatory language in a July 30, 2012, final rulemaking where
EPA approved certain state statues into the Florida SIP to address
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding state boards and 110(a)(2)(G)
regarding emergency powers for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR
29581. In the July 30, 2012, final rule, EPA inadvertently did not list
these state statues in the regulatory text. Accordingly, this
rulemaking corrects that inadvertent regulatory text omission.
    EPA has determined that today's action falls under the ``good
cause'' exemption in section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) which, upon finding ``good cause,'' authorizes
agencies to dispense with public participation where public notice and
comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest. Public notice and comment for this action is
unnecessary because today's action to correct an inadvertent regulatory
text omission included with EPA's July 30, 2012, final rule is
consistent with the substantive revisions to the Florida SIP described
in the May 18, 2012, proposed rule for the July 30, 2012, final rule.
See 77 FR 29581. As such, public notice and comment has been provided
for these revisions and additional notice and comment procedures are
unnecessary. In addition, EPA can identify no particular reason why the
public would be interested in being notified of the correction, or in
having the opportunity to comment on the correction prior to this
action being finalized, since this correction action does not change
the meaning of EPA's analysis or action to approve certain state
statues as addressing the state board and emergency episode
requirements for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS into the Florida SIP. EPA also
finds that there is good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this
correction to become effective on the date of publication of this
action. Section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an effective date less than
30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for
good cause found and published with the rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The
purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in APA section
553(d)(3) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule,
however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that
affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. Rather, today's action merely corrects an inadvertent omission
for the regulatory text of a prior rulemaking by listing these state
statues in the regulatory text for the Florida SIP. For these reasons,
EPA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) for this correction to
become effective on the date of publication of this action.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely corrects an inadvertent omission for the regulatory text of
EPA's July 30, 2012, final rule to approve certain state statues as
addressing the state board and emergency episode requirements for 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS into the Florida SIP, and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
merely corrects an inadvertent omission for the regulatory text of
EPA's July 30, 2012, final rule to approve certain state statues as
addressing the state board and emergency episode requirements for 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS into the Florida SIP, and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This rule merely corrects an inadvertent
omission for the regulatory text of EPA's July 30, 2012, final rule to
approve certain state statues as addressing the state board and
emergency episode requirements for 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS into the
Florida SIP, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant. In addition, this
rule does not involve technical standards, thus the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule also does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    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 January 28, 2013.
    Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this
final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes
of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the
effectiveness

of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

    Dated: November 14, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended 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.

Subpart K--Florida

0
2. Section 52.520(c), is amended by adding in numerical order a new
entry for ``State Statutes,'' at the end of the table to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Florida Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
     State citation (Section)         Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                                 State Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
112.3143(4)......................  Voting Conflict....       4/19/2012  7/30/2012 77 FR      To satisfy the
                                                                         44485.               requirements of
                                                                                sections 128 and
                                                                                110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
112.3144.........................  Full and Public           4/19/2012  7/30/2012 77 FR      To satisfy the
                                    Disclosure of                        44485.               requirements of
                                    Financial                                                 sections 128 and
                                    Interests.                                                110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
403.131..........................  Injunctive relief,        4/19/2012  7/30/2012 77 FR      To satisfy the
                                    remedies.                            44485.               requirements of
                                                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(G).
120.569..........................  Decisions which           4/19/2012  7/30/2012 77 FR      To satisfy the
                                    affect substantial                   44485.               requirements of
                                    interests.                                                section
                                                                                110(a)(2)(G).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-28589 Filed 11-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P