[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 14454]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06787]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP18-135-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on March 23, 2018, National Fuel Gas Supply
Company (National Fuel), 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York
14221-5887, filed in Docket No. CP18-135-000 a prior notice request
pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.210 and 157.211 of the
Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), requesting
authorization to construct, own, and operate: (1) Approximately 4.5
miles of 12-inch-diameter pipeline and appurtenances; (2) a metering
and regulating station/delivery point; (3) a pipeline connection; and
(4) modifications to certain existing facilities and appurtenances, all
located in Beaver and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania (Line N to
Monaca Project). The Line N to Monaca Project would deliver 133,000
dekatherms per day of firm transportation service. The cost of the Line
N to Monaca Project is estimated to be $20,200,000, all as more fully
set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection.
    The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov
using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Randy
C. Rucinski, Deputy General Counsel, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221-5887, by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
[email protected]; or Janet R. Bayer, Senior Regulatory Analyst,
National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville,
New York 14221-5887, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at (716)
857-7206, or by email at [email protected].
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.

    Dated: March 28, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06787 Filed 4-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73205-73210]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28799]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0989; FRL 9920-14-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of
Lake and Porter Counties to Attainment of the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving a
December 5, 2012, request from the state of Indiana to redesignate Lake
and Porter Counties to attainment of the 2008 ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) because Indiana has not
demonstrated that the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin
(IL-IN-WI) ozone nonattainment area (Chicago nonattainment area), which
includes Lake and Porter Counties, has attained this NAAQS. EPA is also
disapproving Indiana's ozone maintenance plan and Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), submitted with Indiana's ozone
redesignation request.

DATES: This final rule is effective January 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action: Docket ID No.
EPA EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0989. 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 (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in EPA's June
30, 2014, proposed rule (79 FR 36692). In that proposed rulemaking, we
noted that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2008 ozone
standard is violated when the three-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations at any monitoring
site in the subject area \1\ is greater 0.075 parts per million parts
of air (ppm). See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012) for further information
regarding area designations for the 2008 ozone standard and 77 FR 34221
(June 11, 2012) for information regarding the designation of the
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area for the 2008 ozone standard. See 40
CFR 50.15 and appendix P to 40 CFR part 50 regarding the ozone data
requirements for a determination of whether an area has attained the
2008 ozone standard. Under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), EPA may redesignate a nonattainment area (or a portion thereof)
to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are
available to demonstrate that the nonattainment area as a whole has
attained the standard and if all other requirements of section
107(d)(3)(E) have been met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone
nonattainment area for the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS. This area is
composed of Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana; Cook, DuPage, Kane,
Lake, McHenry, and Will Counties, Aux Sable and Goose Lake Townships
in Grundy County, and Oswego Township in Kendall County in Illinois;
and the area east of and including the Interstate 94 corridor in
Kenosha County in Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) submitted
a request for the redesignation of Lake and Porter Counties to
attainment of the 2008 ozone standard on December 5, 2012. The
redesignation request included summarized ozone data for all monitors
in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area along with
other information specific to Lake and Porter Counties to demonstrate
that all requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA have been
satisfied. The June 30, 2014, proposed disapproval provides a detailed
discussion of the ozone data for the period of 2006 through 2013 (see
tables 1 and 2 in the June 30, 2014, proposed rule at 79 FR 36694),
which show a violation of the 2008 ozone standard in the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI area based on current, quality-assured ozone data.
It does not, however, discuss in detail other components of Indiana's
submittal because EPA believes that Indiana failed to meet the most
basic requirement for redesignation, a demonstration that the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area has attained the 2008
ozone standard. We proposed to disapprove Indiana's ozone redesignation
request based on the violation of the 2008 ozone standard, but we
proposed no action on Indiana's MVEBs and ozone maintenance
demonstration for the 2008 ozone standard.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed rule?

    During the public comment period for the June 30, 2014, proposed
rule, we received two sets of comments, which we summarize and address
here. One set of comments was submitted by IDEM and the other set was
submitted by an industrial corporation with a facility in Gary,
Indiana.
    Comment 1: Both commenters objected to EPA's proposed disapproval
of Indiana's ozone redesignation request based on violations of the
2008 ozone standard at several monitoring sites in the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area, but outside of Lake and
Porter Counties (no violations of the 2008 ozone standard were recorded
in Lake and Porter Counties), during the period of 2011-2013 (the most
recent three-year period with quality-assured, state-certified ozone
monitoring data).\2\ These objections are based on the commenters' view
that section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA provides for the redesignation of
a portion of a nonattainment area as well as for the entire
nonattainment area. Both commenters contend that, since all monitors in
Lake and Porter Counties have monitored attainment of the 2008 ozone
standard and since Indiana's ozone redesignation request only applies
to Lake and Porter Counties, EPA has erred in its interpretation of
section 107(d)(3)(E) and in its insistence of judging Indiana's
redesignation request based on the current ozone data for all ozone
monitors in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As noted in the June 30, 2014, proposed rule, Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area has experienced a
violation of the 2008 ozone standard for every three-year period
from 2009 to 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEM makes two additional points in support of this comment. First,
IDEM asserts that the plain language of section 107(d)(3)(E) does not
mandate that EPA use as a prerequisite for approval of a redesignation
request that all monitors in a nonattainment area show attainment of
the NAAQS. IDEM contends that EPA misreads section 107(d)(3)(E) with
regard to the word ``area'' contained in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i).
IDEM argues that this subsection cannot be parsed from section
107(d)(3)(E) as a whole, and that a reading of section 107(d)(3)(E) as
a whole shows that the word ``area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) may
apply to a portion of the nonattainment area, as covered by the state's
redesignation request, in this case Lake and Porter Counties, since
other subsections of section 107(d)(3)(E) and the lead-in clauses of
section 107(d)(3)(E) (of general applicability to all of section
107(d)(3)(E) and its subsections) can apply to a portion of the
nonattainment area.\3\ IDEM cites two cases, Kokoszka v.

Bellford, 417 U.S. 642, 650 (1974), and Dada v. Mukasey, 544 U.S. 1
(2008), for the principle that ``When interpreting a statute, the court
will not look merely to a particular clause in which general words may
be used, but will take in connection with it the whole statute . . .''.
IDEM argues that this legal principle supports its view that
interpretation of ``the area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) must be
informed and modified by ``a nonattainment area (or portion thereof)''
as provided in the lead-in clauses of section 107(d)(3)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The leading clauses of section 107(d)(3)(E) refer to the
``nonattainment area (or portion thereof).'' In addition, the term
``area'' in subsections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iv), and (v) can be
applied to a sub-portion of a nonattainment area, generally to a
state's portion of a multi-state nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, IDEM cites EPA's approval of the redesignation of
Kentucky's portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky (OH-KY)
nonattainment area to attainment of the 1990 ozone standard in further
support of its position. IDEM notes that EPA approved a redesignation
request for the Kentucky portion even though the Ohio portion of this
ozone nonattainment area was denied redesignation. IDEM points out that
in doing so, EPA interpreted the term ``area'' in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(ii) to mean a portion of the nonattainment area, rather
than the nonattainment area as a whole. Similarly, IDEM notes that, in
EPA's subsequent final rule approving the redesignation of the Kentucky
portion of the nonattainment area, EPA said that it had the authority
to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the nonattainment area
independent of whether Ohio had met all of the requirements for a fully
approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) for its portion of the
nonattainment area. IDEM believes that EPA's interpretation of ``area''
in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) in the redesignation of the Kentucky
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY nonattainment area is the
correct interpretation and should apply to subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i)
to support the approval of Indiana's ozone redesignation request for
Lake and Porter Counties.
    Response 1: Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA specifies five criteria
for evaluating the adequacy of a state's redesignation request. A key
element of these criteria is contained in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i),
which requires that the Administrator (EPA) determine that ``the area
has attained the national ambient air quality standard.'' EPA has
consistently interpreted ``area'' in this subsection to mean the entire
nonattainment area and has required that all monitors in the subject
nonattainment area have monitored attainment of the subject air quality
standard. This is true for multi-state nonattainment areas, such as the
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area, and for single state
nonattainment areas. See, e.g., 77 FR 6743, February 9, 2012, (proposed
redesignation of the Illinois portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
IL-IN nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone standard); 76 FR 79579,
December 22, 2011, (proposed redesignation of the Illinois portion of
the St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone
standard); 72 FR 26759, May 11, 2007, (proposed redesignation of the
Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland, Kentucky-West Virginia
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone standard); 72 FR 1474, January
12, 2007, (proposed redesignation of the West Virginia portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta, West Virginia-Ohio nonattainment area for the
1997 ozone standard); and 75 FR 12090, March 12, 2010, (proposed
redesignation of the Indiana portion of the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
Illinois-Indiana nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone standard).
    The commenters assert that section 107(d)(3)(E) criteria allow the
redesignation of a portion of a nonattainment area. We agree with these
commenters that EPA can, and has under certain circumstances,
redesignated portions of a nonattainment area to attainment of the
NAAQS while leaving other portions of the nonattainment area designated
as nonattainment. See the above list of proposed rules for proposed
partial area redesignations. However, regardless of whether EPA
considers a redesignation of a part of a nonattainment area or the
redesignation of an entire nonattainment area, EPA considers the air
quality data for the entire nonattainment area to establish compliance
with the air quality requirements of subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i). EPA
has consistently taken this approach because to do otherwise could
result in the stripping of source areas that are otherwise attaining
the NAAQS away from the remainder of a nonattainment area that
continues to violate the NAAQS. This would clearly undermine the CAA's
intent for nonattainment areas to include both the violating areas and
the source areas that contribute to the violations of the NAAQS, as
expressed in subsection 107(d)(1)(A)(i) of the CAA. Redesignating
portions of nonattainment areas when the areas, as wholes, are not
attaining the NAAQS would also interfere with the CAA's emission
control requirements that are designed to bring the nonattainment areas
back into attainment of the NAAQS by controlling emissions in source
areas within the nonattainment areas.
    EPA disagrees with IDEM that the CAA compels EPA to interpret the
word ``area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to mean a nonattainment
area or a portion of a nonattainment area. The language of section
107(d)(3)(E) and its subsections, read with the CAA as a whole, does
not lend itself to a clear and unambiguous interpretation of the term
``area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i).
    IDEM argues that EPA must interpret ``area'' in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i) in light of the CAA as a whole. EPA agrees, and
believes that, contrary to IDEM's position, this legal principle
supports EPA's reading of the statute. As noted above, if EPA were to
interpret ``area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to permit the agency
to approve a redesignation where the air quality standard was not being
attained in all portions of the nonattainment area, the agency would
contravene Congress' intent that nonattainment areas include not only
areas that do not meet the air quality standard but also areas ``that
contribute [ ] to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not
meet'' the standard. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(i). Interpreting the
statute in the manner suggested by IDEM would allow a portion of a
nonattainment area, which itself is not violating the NAAQS but is
contributing to nonattainment in that area, to be redesignated to
attainment immediately after being designated as part of the
nonattainment area under CAA subsection 107(d)(1)(A)(i) if the state
could demonstrate compliance with the provisions of subsections
107(d)(3)(E)(ii)-(v). This is not a reasonable reading of the statute,
and thus EPA disagrees with IDEM that, in reading the statute as a
whole, the word ``area'' in subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) should be
interpreted to include ``a portion of the nonattainment area.''
    In fact, the requested redesignation at issue illustrates precisely
the hypothetical example set out above. On June 11, 2012, EPA finalized
its designation of Lake and Porter Counties as part of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area (77 FR 34221). EPA
explained in that rule that Lake and Porter Counties were included in
the ozone nonattainment area designation based on their emissions and
contribution to high ozone concentrations in other parts of the
nonattainment area. See EPA's final technical support document (TSD)
for the designation of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area (available
at http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/documents/

R5_Chicago_TSD_Final.pdf). In particular, in the TSD, EPA noted that
Lake and Porter Counties account for 10.4 percent of the total VOC
emissions and 18.8 percent of the total NOX emissions for
the entire Chicago consolidated statistical area. Id. at 9. In the TSD,
EPA also noted that other county-specific factors, including population
levels, traffic levels (vehicle miles of travel), and meteorology
during high ozone days in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area also
supported the inclusion of Lake and Porter Counties in the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
standard.
    In the designations process, Indiana objected to the inclusion of
Lake and Porter Counties in the ozone nonattainment area, and EPA
responded to those comments. See EPA's ``ADDENDUM to Response to
Significant Comments on the State and Tribal Designation
Recommendations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for Section <IP_ADDRESS>. Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
area'' (RTC Addendum), (available at http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/2008standards/documents/20120531chicagortc.pdf). In
both the TSD and the RTC Addendum, EPA discussed ozone modeling
analyses conducted by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium
(LADCO) that demonstrate that Lake and Porter Counties' ozone precursor
emissions significantly contributed to high ozone levels at the Zion,
Illinois monitoring site (the worst-case ozone design value monitoring
site considered during ozone designation process for the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI area) during the high ozone days modeled by LADCO
(TSD at 17-19 and RTC Addendum at 10-12).
    EPA's inclusion of Lake and Porter Counties as part of the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
standard is also consistent with section 107(d)(1) of the CAA and EPA's
interpretation of the statute as it pertains to ozone designations as
expressed in a December 4, 2008, EPA policy memorandum (``Area
Designations for the 2008 Revised Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards,'' from Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, to Regional Administrators, Regions I-X). As noted in
that memorandum, because ``[g]round-level ozone and ozone precursor
emissions are pervasive and readily transported . . . EPA believes it
is important to examine ozone-contributing emissions across a
relatively broad geographic area.'' Id. at 3.
    Indiana requested redesignation of the Lake and Porter Counties
portion of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI nonattainment area in
December 2012, six months after the initial designation of the
nonattainment area was finalized. The state's request is based on the
same years of air quality data that were used to designate the area
nonattainment. Thus, interpreting ``area'' in section 107(d)(3)(E) as
IDEM suggests would have the effect of immediately reversing the
designation of the nonattainment area, an outcome that Congress could
not have intended. Indiana has objected to the inclusion of Lake and
Porter Counties in the Chicago nonattainment area and it has filed a
petition for judicial review of that decision.\4\ The redesignation
process, however, is not the proper forum in which to challenge EPA's
designation decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality, et al. v.
EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 12-1309 and consolidated cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEM's assertion that EPA's redesignation of the Kentucky portion
of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY nonattainment area for the 1990 ozone
standard is inconsistent with EPA's action here is also mistaken. In
that redesignation, EPA clearly considered ozone data for all ozone
monitoring sites in the entire Cincinnati-Hamilton nonattainment area,
and not just for the portion of the area that was being redesignated,
in determining that the Kentucky portion of the area had met the
criteria for redesignation. 65 FR 3630 (January 24, 2000) and 65 FR
37879 (June 19, 2000). IDEM accurately notes that EPA interpreted the
word ``area'' for purposes of subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) to mean the
state-specific portion of the nonattainment area in the Cincinnati-
Hamilton redesignation, consistent with EPA's long-standing
interpretation of that provision.
    EPA acknowledges that the meaning of the word ``area'' in section
107(d)(3)(E) is ambiguous. In the Cincinnati-Hamilton redesignation
cited by IDEM, and in other actions, EPA has consistently interpreted
the word ``area'' in subsections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iv), and (v) to
include the single-state portions of multi-state nonattainment areas in
addition to entire nonattainment areas seeking redesignation.
Subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) requires that an area have a fully approved
applicable SIP, subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) requires that an area have
a fully approved maintenance plan, and subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(v)
requires an area to have met all applicable requirements under section
110 and part D. These subsections are distinguishable from subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i) in that interpreting ``area'' in these subsections to
include a single-state portion of a multi-state area does not interfere
with any other requirement of the CAA. Furthermore, EPA interprets
``area'' in subsections 107(d)(3)(E)(ii), (iv), and (v) to include
portions of nonattainment areas because those provisions all relate to
SIP revision requirements, and each state is independently responsible
for obtaining approval of the applicable SIP provisions for
redesignation.
    EPA does not think it is necessary to require one state to wait for
another state to complete its SIP actions before becoming eligible for
redesignation if the nonattainment area as a whole is attaining the
NAAQS. On the other hand, although EPA will determine that a state
containing a portion of a multi-state nonattainment area has satisfied
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) where only that state has submitted a fully
approved maintenance plan, EPA requires as a matter of course that the
state communicate with the other states governing the multi-state
nonattainment area and demonstrate projected maintenance of the NAAQS
in the other portions of the nonattainment area, even in the absence of
fully approved maintenance plans from those other states. EPA has,
therefore, been consistent in interpreting ``area'' in 107(d)(3)(E) to
mean the entire nonattainment area with respect to air quality
concerns, even where the Agency has interpreted the term ``area'' to
include single-state portions of multi-state nonattainment areas when
the requirement is limited to SIP submission and processing.
    In conclusion, EPA believes that interpreting the word ``area'' in
subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) to mean a portion of a nonattainment area
contravenes the CAA mandate in subsection 107(d)(1)(A)(i) for the
nonattainment area to include both the violating areas and the source
areas that contribute to the violations of the NAAQS. Even if EPA
believed that it could redesignate a portion of an area when another
portion of the area is violating the NAAQS, we would decline to take
that approach as a policy matter because we believe that our current
interpretation of subsection 107(d)(3)(E)(i) is most protective of
human health and the environment.
    Comment 2: IDEM requests that EPA re-evaluate Indiana's December 5,
2012, redesignation request in total, after consideration of its
arguments as summarized in comment 1, to determine

whether the request as a whole conforms to the requirements of section
107(d)(3)(D).
    Response 2: As explained in response to Comment 1 above, we
disagree with IDEM's interpretation of ``area'' in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i) and have determined that this subsection requires
attainment of the 2008 ozone standard in the entire Chicago-Naperville,
IL-IN-WI nonattainment area. Since the 2008 ozone standard has not been
attained in the entire nonattainment area, as evidenced by the ozone
monitoring data summarized in the June 30, 2014, proposed rule (see
tables 1 and 2 at 79 FR 36692, 36694-36695), we conclude that the
Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area and Indiana's ozone redesignation
request for Lake and Porter Counties have not met the most basic
requirement for redesignation, attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Since attainment of the NAAQS is a prerequisite for development of
an acceptable attainment emissions inventory (and the MVEBs derived
thereof) and for demonstrations of maintenance, we cannot approve these
components of Indiana's ozone redesignation request for Lake and Porter
Counties. In our June 30, 2014, proposed rule, we explained that rather
than acting on these components of Indiana's redesignation request,
which would almost certainly have resulted in proposed disapproval on
the grounds of the failure of the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area to
attain the 2008 ozone standard, we chose to take no action on these
components (79 FR 36692, 36696). In so doing, we explained that an
approvable ozone maintenance plan must contain an ozone attainment
emissions inventory documenting VOC and NOX emissions for
the period in which the area has attained the ozone standard. We
concluded that ``[s]ince the Chicago ozone nonattainment area continues
to violate the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we cannot conclude that
Indiana has developed an acceptable attainment year emissions
inventory. This means that the ozone maintenance demonstration portion
of the ozone maintenance plan is unacceptable.'' Id. Similarly, with
regard to Indiana's proposed MVEBs for VOCs and NOX, we
explained that ``since the estimation of the VOC and NOX
MVEBs depends on the determination of mobile source emissions that,
along with other emissions in the nonattainment area, provide for
attainment of the ozone standard, and since the Chicago nonattainment
area continues to violate the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we
conclude that Indiana's estimates of the VOC and NOX MVEBs
are also not acceptable.'' Id.
    Subsequently, IDEM submitted its comment requesting that we take
action on the remaining components of its submittal in light of our re-
evaluation of our interpretation of ``area'' in subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i). We had proposed to take no action on those remaining
components; but based on our earlier findings that those components are
not approvable and on IDEM's comment urging us to take action on its
request as a whole, we now conclude that we cannot approve the
remaining portions of Indiana's request--its maintenance plan and its
proposed MVEBs. As a result, we are in this action disapproving these
remaining portions of Indiana's submission. We believe this disapproval
is a logical outgrowth of our proposal, because we included in that
notice not only our explanation for why these elements were not
approvable, but also indicated that ``if we were to propose actions on
these ozone redesignation request elements, we would find it necessary
to propose disapproval.'' 79 FR 36692, 36696. We believe this alerted
commenters that we were considering disapproval of the maintenance plan
and MVEBs. Therefore, we are determining that the MVEBs and ozone
maintenance plan included with Indiana's ozone redesignation request
must be disapproved on the basis that the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI
area continues to violate the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 3: The corporate commenter asserted that EPA's failure to
redesignate the portions of nonattainment areas that meet the NAAQS
unnecessarily burdens economic development in such areas. The commenter
objected to the implementation of (nonattainment) New Source Review
(NSR) requirements in these areas on the basis that such implementation
unjustly burdens the sources in these areas.
    Response 3: Since the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area continues
to violate the 2008 ozone standard, it is imperative that NSR continue
to be applied in all parts of the nonattainment area to avoid
exacerbation of the existing ozone air quality problem. The
``attainment'' portions of nonattainment areas that the commenter
refers to are in this case source areas contributing to violations of
the NAAQS in other portions of the nonattainment area. See also our
response to Comment 1, above. Therefore, it is inappropriate to
redesignate the attaining portions of the nonattainment areas and to
remove NSR requirements, including new source offsets, in these
attaining portions while violations of the NAAQS continue in other
portions of the nonattainment areas.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    We are disapproving a December 5, 2012, request from the state of
Indiana to redesignate Lake and Porter Counties to attainment of the
2008 ozone NAAQS because Indiana has not demonstrated that the Chicago-
Naperville, IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area, which includes Lake and
Porter Counties, has attained this NAAQS, as required by subsection
107(d)(3)(E)(i) of the CAA. EPA is also disapproving Indiana's ozone
maintenance plan and MVEBs, submitted with Indiana's ozone
redesignation request, because Indiana has failed to successfully
present MVEBs and an ozone maintenance plan which reflect attainment
and maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard in the Chicago-Naperville,
IL-IN-WI ozone nonattainment area as evidenced by the continued
violation of this ozone standard in this ozone nonattainment area.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely disapproves state law as not meeting Federal
requirements 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.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule disapproves pre-existing requirements under state
law 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).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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 action merely disapproves a state rule, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule
does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    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 disapproves a state rule.

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

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' 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).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 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.

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

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

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 9, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 25, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    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.

0
2. Section 52.777 is amended by adding paragraph (ss), to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.777  Control strategy: photochemical oxidents (hydrocarbons).

* * * * *
    (ss) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving Indiana's December 5, 2012,
ozone redesignation request for Lake and Porter Counties for the 2008
ozone standard. EPA is also disapproving Indiana's motor vehicle
emission budgets and ozone maintenance plan submitted with the
redesignation request.

[FR Doc. 2014-28799 Filed 12-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59074-59075]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21175]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0047; FRL-10259-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New
Electric Utility Generating Units (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
for New Electric Utility Generating Units (EPA ICR Number 2465.05, OMB
Control Number 2060-0685), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through November 30, 2022. Public comments were previously requested,
via the Federal Register, on April 8, 2022 during a 60-day comment
period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct
nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection
of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 31,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0047, to: (1) EPA online using https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA's policy is
that all comments received will be included in the public docket
without change, including any personal information provided, unless the
comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and
Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
https://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions for New Electric Utility Generating Units were
proposed on June 2, 2014 and promulgated on October 23, 2015.
Amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT were proposed on December 6,
2018, but EPA did not finalize amendments to the 2015 final rule. On
January 13, 2021, EPA finalized a pollutant-specific significant
contribution finding for this source category, which was later vacated
and remanded on April 5, 2021. These regulations apply to either newly
constructed, modified or reconstructed facilities with electric utility
generating units (EGUs), including any steam generating unit, IGCC, or
stationary combustion turbine that commenced construction after January
8, 2014 or commenced reconstruction after June 18, 2014. To be
considered an EGU the unit must be: (1) capable of combusting more than
250 MMBtu/h heat input of fossil fuel; and (2) serve a generator
capable of supplying more than 25 MW net to a utility distribution
system (i.e., for sale to the grid). New facilities include those that
commenced construction, modification or reconstruction after the date
of proposal. This information is being collected to assure compliance
with 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT. In general, all NSPS standards
require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports
by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to
NSPS.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Electric utility generating units.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart TTTT).
    Estimated number of respondents: 92 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly.
    Total estimated burden: 3,130 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $376,000 (per year), which includes no
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The increase in burden from the most
recently approved ICR is due to an adjustment(s). The adjustment
increase in burden from the most-recently approved ICR is due to an
increase in the number of respondents. Based on our consultation with
the Agency's internal industry experts and review of data from EPA's
Clean Air Markets Division and the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, the electric utility sector is undergoing significant
changes and the number of respondents and new sources expected over the
next three years has increased significantly from the most recently
approved ICR.
    Although we are assuming there will be 16 new sources per year
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart TTTT, there is no change in the
capital/startup vs. operation and maintenance (O&M) costs as discussed
in section 6(b)(iii) compared with the costs in the most-recently
approved ICR. There are no capital/startup and/or O&M costs for this
ICR. As described in a previous Federal Register notice (84 FR 25046),
this NSPS imposes a minimal information collection burden on affected
sources beyond what sources would already be subject to under the
authorities of CAA Parts 75 (Acid Rain Program CEM requirements) and 98

(Mandatory GHG Reporting, applicable to EGUs that capture CO2). OMB has
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the existing Part 75 and 98 regulations (40 CFR part 75 and 40 CFR
part 98) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0626 and 2060-
0629, respectively. Apart from certain reporting costs to comply with
the emission standards under the rule, there are no additional
information collection costs, as the information required by the rule
is already collected and reported by other regulatory programs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-21175 Filed 9-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 61685]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0514]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Requests for Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments Categorization

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by October
7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0607.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Requests for Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988
Categorization--42 CFR 493.17--OMB Control Number 0910-0607--Extension

    A guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Administrative
Procedures for CLIA Categorization'' was released on May 7, 2008. The
document describes procedures FDA uses to assign the complexity
category to a device. Typically, FDA assigns complexity categorizations
to devices at the time of clearance or approval of the device. In this
way, no additional burden is incurred by the manufacturer because the
labeling (including operating instructions) is included in the
premarket notification (510(k)) or premarket approval application
(PMA). In some cases, however, a manufacturer may request Clinical
Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1998 (CLIA) categorization even if
FDA is not simultaneously reviewing a 510(k) or PMA. One example is
when a manufacturer requests that FDA assign CLIA categorization to a
previously cleared device that has changed names since the original
CLIA categorization. Another example is when a device is exempt from
premarket review. In such cases, the guidance recommends that
manufacturers provide FDA with a copy of the package insert for the
device and a cover letter indicating why the manufacturer is requesting
a categorization (e.g. name change, exempt from 510(k) review). The
guidance recommends that in the correspondence to FDA the manufacturer
should identify the product code and classification as well as
reference to the original 510(k) when this is available.
    In the Federal Register of April 27, 2016 (81 FR 24820), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                             Number of       Number of     Total annual       Average                      operating and
                        Activity                            respondents    responses per     responses      burden per      Total hours     maintenance
                                                                            respondent                       response                          costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for CLIA Categorization.........................              60              15             900               1             900         $46,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs associated with this collection of information.

    The number of respondents is approximately 60. On average, each
respondent will request categorizations (independent of a 510(k) or
PMA) 15 times per year. The cost, not including personnel, is estimated
at $52 per hour (52 x 900), totaling $46,800. This includes the cost of
copying and mailing copies of package inserts and a cover letter, which
includes a statement of the reason for the request and reference to the
original 510(k) numbers, including regulation numbers and product
codes. The burden hours are based on FDA familiarity with the types of
documentation typically included in a sponsor's categorization
requests, and costs for basic office supplies (e.g., paper).

    Dated: August 31, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-21352 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P