[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 223 (Thursday, November 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72406-72408]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29369]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0666; FRL-9937-17-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Regulation To Limit Nitrogen Oxides Emissions
From Large Non-Electric Generating Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
District of Columbia Department of Energy and Environment (DOEE). This
revision caps emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from large
non-electric generating units (non-EGUs) to meet the requirements of
EPA's NOX SIP Call. This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 21,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0666 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0666, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0666. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during
normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the District of Columbia Department of Energy and
Environment, Air Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 5th Floor,
Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 19, 2015, DOEE submitted, as a
revision to its SIP, a regulation to limit NOX emissions
from the non-EGUs in the District that are subject to EPA's
NOX SIP call.

I. Background

    On October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA issued a finding that
required 22 states and the District of Columbia to submit SIPs to
address the regional transport of ground level ozone that was
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance for the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS in downwind areas,
known as the NOX SIP Call. The October 27, 1998 rulemaking
action established a model trading rule under 40 CFR part 96 that
states could adopt to comply with the reduction requirements of the
NOX SIP Call, commonly referred to as the NOX
Budget Trading Program (NBTP). The NBTP established under the
NOX SIP Call applied to electric generating units (EGUs)
greater than 25 megawatts electric (25 MWe) and non-EGUs (large
industrial boilers and turbines) with a maximum rated heat input
capacity greater than 250 million British thermal units per hour
(mmbtu/hr). To comply with the NOX SIP Call, the District
submitted a SIP revision that incorporated by reference the 40 CFR part
96 model trading rule. On November 1, 2001 (66 FR 55099), the revision
was approved into the District of Columbia SIP.
    On May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), EPA promulgated the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), which required 28 states and the District of
Columbia to reduce NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions that were significantly contributing to downwind
nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard and the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) annual
standard. The May 12, 2005 rulemaking established model trading rules
for EGUs that states could adopt to comply with their reduction
obligations under CAIR. The NOX SIP Call requirements
continued to apply, and the CAIR model trading rules included a CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program that was coordinated with
the NOX SIP Call, replacing the NBTP as it applied to EGUs
for those states that chose to participate in the CAIR trading program.
In addition, as part of their CAIR SIP, states had the option of
expanding the applicability provisions of the CAIR NOX ozone
season trading program to include the non-EGUs that were trading under
the NBTP. Thus, a state that elected to have non-EGUs participate in
the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program would meet its
NOX SIP Call obligations for both the EGUs and non-EGUs that
were formerly trading under the NBTP through the CAIR trading program.
    On April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25328), EPA promulgated Federal
implementation plans (FIPs) for all States covered by CAIR in order to
ensure that the emission reductions required by CAIR were achieved on
schedule. The CAIR FIPs, which applied only to EGUs, required
participation in the CAIR trading programs. The CAIR FIP trading
programs imposed essentially the same requirements as, and were
integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. Thus a state
subject to the CAIR FIP would be meeting its NOX SIP

Call requirements with respect to its EGUs. Upon approval of a SIP
revision implementing CAIR, a state's CAIR FIP would be withdrawn.
    Subsequently, EPA discontinued the NBTP in 2008. The District of
Columbia, however, did not submit a CAIR SIP. Therefore it became
subject to the CAIR FIP in January 2009, and its NOX SIP
Call reductions for EGUs that were trading in the NBTP were met by the
CAIR NOX ozone season trading program under the FIP.\1\
However, because the CAIR FIP did not have an option for inclusion of
non-EGUs as trading participants, the District was required to submit a
SIP revision to demonstrate compliance with its NOX SIP Call
state budget for non-EGUs, in accordance with 40 CFR part 51.121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On January 1, 2015, the trading programs under the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) replaced the trading programs under
CAIR. EPA had promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR after the D.C.
Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA in 2008. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550
F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008). See also 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011)
(promulgating CSAPR). After litigation on the merits of CSAPR, EPA
began implementing CSAPR in 2015. See EPA v. EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). See also 79 FR 71663
(December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking adjusting CSAPR's
implementation dates). CSAPR does not apply to the District of
Columbia. The District has no EGUs meeting the applicability
criteria under CSAPR since the only EGU in the District permanently
shut down in 2012. With this shut down, the District therefore also
no longer has any EGU obligations under the NOX SIP Call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On June 19, 2015, DOEE submitted a SIP revision that addresses
NOX reductions from its non-EGUs to meet its obligations
under the NOX SIP Call. The submission removes, from the
District's SIP, regulation Title 20 DCMR Chapter 10--Nitrogen Oxides
Emissions Budget Program. Sections 1000 through 1013 of 20 DCMR Chapter
10 comprised the District's Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
NOX Budget Program, which preceded the NOX SIP
Call trading program, and section 1014 incorporated by reference the
NBTP. This submission replaces this regulation with revised Chapter
10--Air Quality--Non-EGU Limits on Nitrogen Oxides Emissions. The
revised Chapter 10 regulation establishes a 25 ton ozone season
NOX emissions cap on applicable non-EGUs \2\ in the
District, and allocates the cap to the non-EGUs located at the U.S.
General Services Administration Central (GSA) Heating and Refrigeration
Plant, with a reallocation required whenever a new non-EGU in the
District becomes subject to the NOX SIP Call. The regulation
also requires continuous emissions monitoring (CEMs) of NOX
emissions, recordkeeping and reporting pursuant to 40 CFR part 75 to
ensure compliance with the District's non-EGU emissions cap. The
submission includes a revision to an associated definition and an
abbreviation in the District's regulations to ensure consistency with
NOX SIP Call requirements. The submission also removes the
obsolete requirements in 20 DCMR Chapter 10 for the OTC NOX
Budget Program because the program ended in 2003 upon the start of the
EPA NBTP under the NOX SIP Call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Applicable non-EGUs are the non-EGUs that were subject to
the NOX SIP Call, including large industrial boilers and
turbines with a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than 250
mmbtu/hr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA may not approve a revision of
a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other
applicable requirement under section 110 of the CAA. EPA finds the
proposed removal of the regulations for the discontinued OTC and
NOX SIP Call trading programs from the District's SIP will
not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress of any
NAAQS nor interfere with any other applicable CAA requirement. First,
the revision to the SIP merely removes outdated provisions from the SIP
(i.e., the NBTP and OTC program) which are no longer effective. Second,
the District's emissions budget under the NOX SIP Call was
more stringent than the budget under the OTC NOX Budget
Program thus providing for greater NOX reductions and
protection of the NAAQS so removal of the OTC program has no effect on
the NAAQS. Likewise, the CAIR NOX Ozone Season trading
program budget was designed to replace the NBTP for EGUs and was more
stringent than the NOX SIP Call budget, thus providing
greater NOX reductions and protection of the NAAQS than the
NBTP. As the District no longer has any EGUs subject to the
NOX SIP Call nor to CSAPR which replaced CAIR, removal of
the NBTP from the SIP has no effect on NOX emissions in the
District. Finally, approval of this proposed SIP revision will maintain
the NOX emission reduction requirements of the
NOX SIP Call for the District's non-EGUs and allow the
District to meet its remaining NOX SIP Call emissions
budget. As the District no longer has any EGUs, the District has no
further obligations under CSAPR, CAIR or the NOX SIP Call
regarding EGUs. Therefore, removal of the previous trading programs
from the District's SIP does not interfere with attainment or
reasonable further progress on any NAAQS nor interfere with any
applicable requirement under section 110 of the CAA.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates that the submittal is
adequate to address the emission reduction requirements of the non-EGUs
under the NOX SIP Call and is in accordance with
requirements in CAA section 110 and its implementing regulations. EPA
is proposing to approve the District of Columbia SIP revision,
submitted on June 19, 2015, that establishes a 25 ton ozone season
NOX emissions cap for non-EGUs in the District. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this proposed rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to include in
a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference revised District of Columbia
regulation Title 20 DCMR, Environment, Chapter 10--Air Quality--Non-EGU
Limits on Nitrogen Oxides Emissions, and the revised definition of
``Fossil fuel-fired'' in Chapter 1, General Rules. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or may be viewed at the
appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for
more information).

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 CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this action proposing approval of the District of
Columbia regulation to limit NOX emissions from non-EGUs
subject to the NOX SIP Call and approval of a related
definition and abbreviation, does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: November 6, 2015.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-29369 Filed 11-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67430-67431]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23630]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2011-0027, Notice No. 9]

Northeast Corridor Safety Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Announcement of Northeast Corridor Safety Committee (NECSC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: FRA announces the seventh meeting of the NECSC, a Federal
Advisory Committee mandated by Section 212 of the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). The NECSC is made up of
stakeholders operating on the Northeast Corridor, and the purpose of
the NECSC is to provide annual recommendations to the Secretary of
Transportation. The NECSC meeting topics will include presentations on
system safety, the Tier III passenger equipment rulemaking, Amtrak 160
mph waiver requests, split rail derails on track leading to the
Northeast Corridor, drug and alcohol issues, and a general discussion
of safety issues. This agenda is subject to change.

DATES: The NECSC meeting is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on
Tuesday, October 18, 2016, and will adjourn by 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The NECSC meeting will be held at the National Housing
Center located at 1201 15th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005. The
meeting is open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis, and
is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sign and oral
interpretation can be made available if requested 10 calendar days
before the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kenton Kilgore, NECSC
Administrative Officer/Coordinator, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Mr. Larry
Woolverton, Executive Officer for Safety Analysis, FRA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NECSC is mandated by a statutory
provision in Section 212 of the PRIIA (codified at 49 U.S.C. 24905(f)).
The NECSC is chartered by the Secretary of Transportation and is an
official Federal Advisory Committee established in accordance with the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C.
Title 5--Appendix.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 26, 2016.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-23630 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 61638]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-98-000]

Arizona Public Service Company; Notice of Institution of Section
206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

    On October 3, 2014, the Commission issued an order in Docket No.
EL14-98-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16
U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation to determine whether
market-based rate authority for Arizona Public Service Company (APS) in
the APS balancing authority area and the Phoenix Valley Load Pocket is
just and reasonable. Arizona Public Service Company, 149 FERC ] 61,013
(2014).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL14-98-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: October 3, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24298 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44551-44555]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18545]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398; FRL-9707-4]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Arizona on October 14, 2009 and to
determine that the existing SIP is adequate to address the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of
the CAA requires that each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit
air emissions from adversely affecting air quality in other states
through interstate transport. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
revision submitted by Arizona and to conclude that additional control
measures in Arizona are not necessary under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because emissions from Arizona sources do not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. We are
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R09-OAR-2012-0398, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas (AIR-2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901. Deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://www.regulations.gov is an
anonymous access system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-
3964<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The State's Submittal
III. EPA's Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Requirements

    On September 21, 2006, EPA promulgated a final rule revising the
1997 24-hour primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. 71 FR
61144 (October 17, 2006).
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires each state to submit to EPA,
within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may
prescribe) after the promulgation of a primary or secondary NAAQS or
any revision thereof, a SIP that provides for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. EPA refers to these
specific submissions as ``infrastructure'' SIPs because they are
intended to address basic structural SIP requirements for new or
revised NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, these
infrastructure SIPs were due on September 21, 2009.\1\ Section
110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that each such plan
submission must meet, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains
to interstate transport of certain emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule establishing the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was
signed by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September
21, 2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for section
110(a) ``infrastructure'' SIP submittals for these NAAQS, these
submittals were due on September 21, 2009, three years from the
September 21, 2006 signature date pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transport SIP provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also
called ``good neighbor'' provisions) require each state to submit a SIP
that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another state in the
ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies
four distinct elements related to the evaluation of impacts of
interstate transport of air pollutants. In this action, EPA is
addressing the first two elements of this section (i.e., the
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions
activity within a state that will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other
state) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This proposed action does not address the remaining two
elements of the transport SIP provision (in CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) regarding interference with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect
visibility in another state. We intend to evaluate and act upon
Arizona's SIP submissions addressing these additional requirements
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate rulemakings. We proposed
action on Arizona's provisions regarding interference with other
states' measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality
on June 27, 2012. See 77 FR 38239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires that each SIP
for a new or revised NAAQS contain adequate measures to prohibit any
source or other type of emissions activity within the state from
emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to
nonattainment'' of the NAAQS in another state. The second element of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires that each SIP prohibit any source
or other type of emissions activity in the state from emitting
pollutants that will ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
NAAQS in any other state.

B. NOX SIP Call, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the
Transport Rule

    EPA has previously addressed the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory actions such as the 1998
NOX SIP call,\3\ the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule
(``CAIR''),\4\ and the 2011 Transport Rule (also known as the ``Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule'' or ``CSAPR'').\5\ In the NOX SIP
call, EPA took action to remediate emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOX) that significantly contributed to nonattainment of, or
interfered with maintenance of, the then applicable ozone NAAQS through
interstate transport of NOX and the resulting ozone.\6\
Through this rule, EPA evaluated whether or not the ozone-season
NOX emissions in certain states had prohibited interstate
impacts, and if they had such impacts, required the states to adopt
substantive SIP revisions to eliminate the NOX emissions,
whether through participation in a regional cap and trade program or by
other means.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for
Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for
Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone,'' 63 FR 57356
(October 27, 1998) (``NOX SIP Call'').
    \4\ See ``Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call,'' 70
FR 25162 (May 12, 2005) (``CAIR'').
    \5\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals;
Final Rule,'' 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``Transport Rule'').
    \6\ See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). EPA's general approach
to section 110(a)(2)(D) in the NOX SIP Call was upheld in
Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert denied, 532
U.S. 904 (2001). However, EPA's approach to interference with
maintenance in the NOX SIP Call was not explicitly
reviewed by the court. See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 907-
09 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \7\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After promulgation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA again recognized that regional transport
was a serious concern throughout the eastern United States and
therefore developed CAIR to address emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX that exacerbate ambient ozone and
PM2.5 levels in many downwind areas through interstate
transport.\8\ Within CAIR, EPA interpreted the term ``interfere with
maintenance'' as part of the evaluation of whether or not the emissions
of sources in certain states had such impacts on areas that EPA
projected would be in violation of the NAAQS unless actions were taken
by upwind states to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions.
Through CAIR, EPA again required states that had such interstate
impacts to adopt substantive SIP revisions to eliminate the
SO2 and NOX emissions, whether through
participation in a regional cap and trade program or by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 70 FR 25162 at 25263-69 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that
CAIR and the related CAIR federal implementation plans were unlawful.
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on
rehearing, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Among other issues, the court held that EPA had not correctly addressed
the second element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in CAIR and noted that
``EPA gave no independent significance to the `interfere with
maintenance' prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to separately identify
upwind sources interfering with downwind maintenance.'' 531 F.3d at
909. EPA's approach, the court reasoned, would leave areas that are
``barely meeting attainment'' with ``no recourse'' to address upwind
emissions sources. Id. The court therefore concluded that a plain
language reading of the statute requires EPA to give independent
meaning to the interfere with maintenance requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and that the approach used by EPA in CAIR failed to do
so.
    To address the judicial remand of CAIR and to replace it, on August
8, 2011, EPA published the final Transport Rule. 76 FR 48208. The
Transport Rule addresses interstate transport pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern United States with respect to the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\9\ As part of this rulemaking, EPA
specifically reexamined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements to
prohibit emissions from sources in a state that ``contribute
significantly to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with maintenance'' of
the NAAQS in other states and developed an approach to identify (1)
areas that it predicts to be violating the NAAQS, and (2) areas that it
predicts to be close to the level of these NAAQS and therefore at risk
to become nonattainment unless emissions from sources in other states
are appropriately controlled. This approach starts by identifying those
specific geographic areas for which further evaluation is appropriate
and differentiates between areas where the concern is significant
contribution to nonattainment as opposed to interference with
maintenance. EPA then conducts state-specific analyses of multiple
factors related to pollution levels at the identified ``receptors''
(monitoring sites) of concern to evaluate significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in other
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CAIR did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 30, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit issued an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and
CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of
the Transport Rule pending judicial review.\10\ In that order, the
court stayed the Transport Rule pending resolution of these petitions
for review of the rule. The court also stated that EPA is expected to
continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the court rules on
these petitions for review of the Transport Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Order dated December 30, 2011, EME Homer City
Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases) (D.C.
Circuit).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Guidance

    On September 25, 2009, after the court remanded CAIR and while EPA
was working on its replacement, EPA issued a guidance memorandum that
provides recommendations to states for making submissions to meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006
PM2.5 standards (``2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance'' or ``Guidance'').\11\ With respect to the
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions that
would contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any
other state, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance
essentially reiterated the recommendations for western states made by
EPA in previous guidance addressing the 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements
for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\12\ The 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance advised states outside
of the CAIR region to include in their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs
adequate technical analyses to support their conclusions regarding
interstate pollution transport, e.g., information concerning emissions
in the state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially
impacted states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the
state and in potentially impacted states, distances to

the nearest areas not attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air
quality modeling. See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure
Guidance at 3.\13\ With respect to the requirement in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions that would interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state, the Guidance stated that
SIP submissions must address this independent requirement of the
statute and provide technical information appropriate to support the
state's conclusions, such as information concerning emissions in the
state, meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially
impacted states, monitored ambient concentrations in the state and in
potentially impacted states, and air quality modeling. See 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 3, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the
2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009.
    \12\ See Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance
for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,''
August 15, 2006.
    \13\ The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance
stated that EPA was working on a new rule to replace CAIR that would
address issues raised by the court in the North Carolina case and
that would provide guidance to states in addressing the requirements
related to interstate transport in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. It also noted that states could
not rely on the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) submissions
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because the CAIR rule
did not address this NAAQS. See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, EPA is maintaining the conceptual approach to
evaluating interstate pollution transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that the Agency provided in the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance and the Transport Rule.
    As described more fully in our Technical Support Document (TSD),
EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three overlapping 3-year
periods (i.e., 2006-2008, 2007-2009, and 2008-2010) to determine which
areas are expected to be violating the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS and which areas are predicted to potentially have difficulty
maintaining attainment. In essence, if a monitoring site shows a
violation of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during the most
recent 3-year period (2008-2010), then this monitor location is
appropriate for evaluation for purposes of the significant contribution
to nonattainment element of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). If, on the
other hand, a monitoring site shows attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS during the most recent 3-year period (2008-2010)
but a violation in at least one of the previous two 3-year periods
(2006-2008 or 2007-2009), then this monitor location is appropriate for
evaluation for purposes of the interfere with maintenance element of
the statute.
    By this method, EPA has identified those areas with monitors that
are appropriate ``nonattainment receptors'' or ``maintenance
receptors'' for evaluating whether the emissions from sources in
another state could significantly contribute to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance in, that particular area. EPA believes that
this approach for identifying areas that are predicted to be
nonattainment and significantly impacted by other states, or have
difficulty maintaining the NAAQS, is appropriate to evaluate a state's
submission in relation to the elements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) pertaining to significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance.
    EPA continues to believe that the more widespread and serious
transport problems in the eastern United States are analytically
distinct.\14\ For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes that
nonattainment and maintenance problems in the western United States are
relatively local in nature with only limited impacts from interstate
transport. In the Transport Rule, EPA did not calculate the portion of
any downwind state's predicted PM2.5 concentrations that
would result from emissions from individual western states, such as
Arizona. Accordingly, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP
submissions for states outside the geographic area analyzed to develop
the Transport Rule may be evaluated using a ``weight of the evidence''
approach that takes into account available relevant information, such
as that recommended by EPA in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Guidance. Such information may include, but is not
limited to, the amount of emissions in the state relevant to the NAAQS
in question, the meteorological conditions in the area, the distance
from the state to the nearest monitors in other states that are
appropriate receptors, or such other information as may be probative to
consider whether sources in the state may contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. These submissions can rely on
modeling when acceptable modeling technical analyses are available, but
EPA does not believe that modeling is necessarily required if other
available information is sufficient to evaluate the presence or degree
of interstate transport in a given situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at 45227 (August
2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The State's Submittal

    CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be
adopted by the State after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA
has promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in
40 CFR part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of
notices, by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area, of
a public hearing on the proposed revisions, a public comment period of
at least 30 days, and an opportunity for a public hearing.
    On October 14, 2009, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) submitted the ``Arizona State Implementation Plan
Revision under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(1) and (2); 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8-hour
Ozone NAAQS,'' to address the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, among other
requirements (``2009 Infrastructure Analysis'').\15\ Within that
submittal, Appendix B, ``Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--
Interstate Transport Analysis for the 2006 PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (referred to herein as
``PM2.5 Transport Analysis'') addresses the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements that are the
subject of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ADEQ intended for this SIP submittal to also address all
other requirements of CAA section 110(a), excepting section
110(a)(2)(G), for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. See letter dated October 14,
2009, from Eric C. Massey, Air Quality Director, ADEQ, to Laura
Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, with
enclosures. EPA has proposed to act on this submittal for purposes
of addressing the other ``infrastructure'' requirements of CAA
section 110(a) in a separate proposed rule published on June 27,
2012 (77 FR 38239).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ's October 14, 2009 submittal includes public process
documentation for the 2009 Infrastructure Analysis, including the
PM2.5 Transport Analysis. In addition, the SIP revision
includes documentation of a duly noticed public hearing held on
September 16, 2009, on the proposed 2009 Infrastructure Analysis.
    We find that the process followed by ADEQ in adopting the
PM2.5 Transport Analysis complies with the procedural
requirements for SIP revisions under CAA section 110 and EPA's
implementing regulations.

III. EPA's Evaluation

    To determine whether the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement
is satisfied, EPA must determine whether a state's emissions contribute
significantly to nonattainment or

interfere with maintenance in downwind areas. If this factual finding
is in the negative, then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not require
any changes to a state's SIP. If, however, the evaluation reveals that
emissions from sources within the state do contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other states, then the
state must adopt substantive provisions to eliminate those emissions.
The state could achieve any required reductions through traditional
command and control programs, or at its own election, through
participation in a cap and trade program. Consistent with EPA's
approach in the 1998 NOX SIP call, the 2005 CAIR, and the
2011 Transport Rule,\16\ EPA is evaluating these impacts with respect
to specific monitors identified as having nonattainment and/or
maintenance problems, which we refer to as ``receptors.'' EPA notes
that no single piece of information is by itself dispositive of the
issue. Instead, the total weight of all the evidence taken together is
used to evaluate significant contributions to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27,
1998); CAIR, 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed approval addresses the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in
several ways. It takes into account Arizona's PM2.5
Transport Analysis, which explains that meteorological and other
characteristics in Arizona and in the surrounding areas reduce the
likelihood that Arizona's emissions contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any downwind state. In addition, EPA has
supplemented its evaluation of Arizona's submittal with a review of the
monitors in other states that are appropriate ``nonattainment
receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors,'' consistent with EPA's
approach in the Transport Rule, and additional technical information to
consider whether sources in Arizona contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.
    Our Technical Support Document (TSD) contains a more detailed
evaluation and is available in the public docket for this rulemaking,
which may be accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, docket
number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0398. We provide below a summary of our
analysis.

A. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment

    EPA reviewed the State of Arizona's PM2.5 Transport
Analysis and additional technical information to evaluate the potential
for Arizona emissions to contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in the
western United States.\17\ EPA first identified as ``nonattainment
receptors'' all monitoring sites in the western states that had
recorded PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the years 2008-
2010.\18\ See Section III of the TSD for more a more detailed
description of EPA's methodology for selection of nonattainment
receptors. Because geographic distance is a relevant factor in the
assessment of potential pollution transport, EPA focused its review on
information related to potential transport of PM2.5
pollution from Arizona to nonattainment receptors in the states
bordering Arizona: Utah, Nevada, and California.\19\ With respect to
Utah and Nevada, as detailed in the TSD, EPA believes that the
following factors support a finding that emissions from Arizona do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in either of these states: (1) Technical
information indicating that elevated PM2.5 levels at
nonattainment receptors are predominantly caused by local emission
sources, (2) air quality data indicating that regional background
levels of PM2.5 are generally low during the time periods of
elevated PM2.5 at these receptors, and (3) the presence of
significant terrain, which creates a physical impediment to pollution
transport. Similarly and again as detailed in the TSD, with respect to
California, technical information indicating that elevated
PM2.5 levels at the nonattainment receptors are
predominantly caused by local emission sources and that the dominant
air flows across California are from the west to the east support a
finding that emissions from the state of Arizona do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ EPA has also considered potential PM2.5
transport from Arizona to the nearest nonattainment and maintenance
receptors located in the eastern, midwestern and southern states
covered by the Transport Rule and believes it is reasonable to
conclude that, given the significant distance from Arizona to the
nearest such receptor (in Illinois) and the relatively insignificant
amount of emissions from Arizona that could potentially be
transported such a distance, emissions from Arizona sources do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at this
location. These same factors also support a finding that emissions
from Arizona sources neither contribute significantly to
nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS at any location further east. See TSD at
Section I.B.3.
    \18\ Because CAIR did not cover states in the western United
States, these data are not significantly impacted by the remanded
CAIR and thus could be considered in this analysis. In contrast,
recent air quality data in the eastern, midwestern and southern
states are significantly impacted by reductions associated with CAIR
and because the Transport Rule was developed to replace CAIR, EPA
could not consider reductions associated with the CAIR in the base
case transport analysis for those states. See 76 FR at 48223-24.
    \19\ EPA did not identify any nonattainment receptors in New
Mexico or Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5 transport to
nonattainment receptors in the more distant western states of Oregon,
Washington, Idaho, and Montana.\20\ EPA believes that the following
factors support a finding that emissions from Arizona do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in any of these states: (1) The significant
distance from the State of Arizona to the nonattainment receptors in
these states, (2) technical information indicating that elevated
PM2.5 levels at nonattainment receptors in these states are
predominantly caused by local emission sources, (3) air quality data
indicating that regional background levels of PM2.5 are
generally low during the time periods of elevated PM2.5 at
these receptors, and (4) the presence of significant terrain, which
creates a physical impediment to pollution transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA did not identify any nonattainment receptors in
Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this evaluation of Arizona's PM2.5 Transport
Analysis and additional technical information, EPA proposes to conclude
that emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors from sources in the State of Arizona do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards in any other state and that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
therefore does not require Arizona to adopt additional controls for
purposes of implementing the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards.

B. Evaluation of Interference With Maintenance

    EPA reviewed the State of Arizona's PM2.5 Transport
Analysis and additional technical information to evaluate the potential
for Arizona emissions to interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standards at specified monitoring sites in the western
U.S. EPA first identified as ``maintenance

receptors'' all monitoring sites in the western states that had
recorded PM2.5 design values above the level of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS (35 [mu]g/m\3\) during the 2006-2008 and/or
2007-2009 periods but below this standard during the 2008-2010 period.
See section IV of the TSD for more information regarding EPA's
methodology for selection of maintenance receptors. All of the
maintenance receptors in the western states are located in California,
Utah, and Arizona. EPA therefore evaluated the potential for transport
of Arizona emissions to the maintenance receptors located in California
and Utah.\21\ As detailed in the TSD, EPA believes that the following
factors support a finding that emissions from Arizona do not interfere
with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in either
state: (1) Technical information indicating that elevated
PM2.5 levels at these maintenance receptors are
predominantly caused by local emission sources, and (2) technical
information indicating that the dominant air flows across California
are from the west to the east.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As this analysis focused on interstate transport, EPA did
not evaluate the impact of Arizona emissions on maintenance
receptors within Arizona. (EPA has not identified any nonattainment
receptors in Arizona.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this evaluation of Arizona's PM2.5 Transport
Analysis and additional technical information, EPA proposes to conclude
that emissions of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5
precursors from sources in the State of Arizona do not interfere with
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other
state and that CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) therefore does not
require Arizona to adopt additional controls for purposes of
implementing the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards.

C. Section 110(l) of the Act

    Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any SIP
revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any
other applicable requirement of the Act. The PM2.5 Transport
Analysis contains no regulatory provisions and does not affect any
requirement in Arizona's applicable implementation plan. We propose to
determine that our approval of the PM2.5 Transport Analysis
would comply with CAA section 110(l) because the proposed SIP revision
would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that
requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met. The SIP
revision does not alter any provisions in the SIP as EPA has concluded,
based on its supplemental analysis, that the existing SIP is sufficient
to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Our TSD contains a more
detailed discussion of our evaluation.

IV. Proposed Action

    Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is proposing to
approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of Arizona on October 14,
2009 and to determine, based on that submission and additional EPA
analysis, that emissions from Arizona sources do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state or interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS by any other state. Accordingly, we propose
to conclude that the existing SIP is adequate to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard)
for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and that additional
control measures in Arizona are not necessary for this purpose.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposal and will accept
comments until the date noted in the DATES section above.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 20, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-18545 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12472-12473]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD15-4-000]

Technical Conference on Environmental Regulations and Electric
Reliability, Wholesale Electricity Markets, and Energy Infrastructure;
Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conferences issued on
December 9, 2014 \1\ and the Supplemental Notice of Technical
Conferences issued on January 6, 2015,\2\ the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) staff will hold a Central region \3\ technical
conference to discuss implications of compliance approaches to the
Clean Power Plan proposed rule, issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on June 2, 2014.\4\ The technical conference will focus on
issues related to electric reliability, wholesale electric markets and
operations, and energy infrastructure in the Central region. The
Commission will hold the Central region technical conference on March
31, 2015, from approximately 8:45 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Renaissance
St. Louis Airport Hotel, 9801 Natural Bridge Road, St. Louis, MO 63134
(Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). This conference is free of charge and open to
the public. Commission members may participate in the conference. The
agenda for the Central region technical conference is attached to this
Supplemental Notice of Technical Conference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Technical Conference on Environmental Regulations and
Electric Reliability, Wholesale Electricity Markets, and Energy
Infrastructure, Docket No. AD15-4-000, (Dec. 9, 2014) (Notice of
Technical Conferences), available at http://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20141209165657-AD15-4-000TC.pdf.
    \2\ Technical Conference on Environmental Regulations and
Electric Reliability, Wholesale Electricity Markets, and Energy
Infrastructure, Docket No. AD15-4-000, (Jan. 6, 2015) (Supplemental
Notice of Technical Conferences), available at http://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20150106170115-AD15-4-000TC1.pdf.
    \3\ For purposes of this conference, the Central Region includes
the following Commission-approved Order No. 1000 planning regions:
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO) and Southwest
Power Pool, Inc. (SPP). This region also includes the Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).
    \4\ Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary
Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 79 FR 34,830 (2014)
(Proposed Rule), available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-06-18/pdf/2014-13726.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those interested in speaking at the technical conference should
notify the Commission by March 9, 2015, by completing the online form
at the following Web page: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/03-31-15-speaker-form.asp. At this Web page, please provide an abstract
(700 character limit) of the issue(s) you propose to address. Due to
time constraints, we expect to not be able to accommodate all those
interested in speaking. Selected speakers will be notified as soon as
possible.
    If you have not already done so, those who plan to attend the
technical conference are strongly encouraged to complete the
registration form located at: https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/03-31-15-form.asp. There is no registration deadline or
fee to attend the conference.
    The Commission will post information on the technical conference on
the Calendar of Events on the Commission's Web site,

http://www.ferc.gov, prior to the conference. The Central region
technical conference will also be transcribed. Transcripts of the
technical conference will be available for a fee from Ace-Federal
Reporters, Inc. ((202) 347-3700 or<PHONE_NUMBER>). There will also be
a free audio cast of the conference. The audio cast will allow persons
to listen to the Central region technical conference, but not
participate. Anyone with internet access who desires to watch the
Central region conference can do so by navigating to the Calendar of
Events on the Commission's Web site, http://www.ferc.gov, and locating
the Central region technical conference in the Calendar. The Central
region technical conference will contain a link to its audio cast.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The audio cast will continue to be available on the Calendar
of Events on the Commission's Web site, http://www.ferc.gov, for
three months after the conference.
_____________________________________-

    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free (866) 208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    For more information about the technical conferences, please
contact:

Logistical Information: Sarah McKinley, Office of External Affairs,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Legal Information: Alan Rukin, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Technical Information: Jessica L. Cockrell, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Technical Information: Michael Gildea, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 3, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-05388 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 226)]
[Notices]
[Page 71120-71121]
[DOCID:fr25no05-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-26-000, et al.]

Rainy River Energy Corporation--Wisconsin, et al.; Electric Rate
and Corporate Filings

November 16, 2005.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. Rainy River Energy Corporation--Wisconsin

[Docket No. EC06-26-000]

    Take notice that on November 9, 2005, Rainy River Energy
Corporation--Wisconsin (RR Wisconsin) submitted an application pursuant
to section 203 of the Federal Power Act and part 33 of the Commission's
regulations, requesting authorization for RRW Wisconsin to acquire
membership units in American Transmission Company LLC and Class A non-
voting stock in ATC Management Inc.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 30, 2005.

2. Michigan Electric Transmission Co., LLC

[Docket No. EC06-27-000]

    Take notice that on November 10, 2005, Michigan Electric
Transmission Company, LLC (METC) submitted an application under section
203 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec.  824b and part 33 of the
Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 33, for any required
authorizations associated with its acquisition of certain electric
facilities from Consumers Energy Company.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 1, 2005.

3. Wildorado Wind, LP

[Docket No. EG06-5-000]

    Take notice that on November 9, 2005, Wildorado Wind LP (Wildorado
Wind), filed with the Commission an application for determination of
exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the
Commission's regulations.
    Wildorado Wind states that it is a 161 MW facility located in
Oldham County, Texas with transmission line extending into Potter and
Randall Counties and is owned and operated by Wildorado Wind, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Cielo Wind Power Corporation.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 30, 2005.

4. Wind park Bear Creek, LLC

[Docket No. EG06-6-000]

    Take notice that on November 9, 2005, Wind park Bear Creek, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (WpBC), filed with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt
wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's
regulations.
    WpBC states that it intends to operate a 24-MW wind powered
generation facility currently under construction in the Township of
Bear Creek, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania (Facility). WpBC further
states that when completed, the electric energy produced by the
Facility will be sold into the wholesale power market of the PJM
Region. The Facility is expected to begin commercial operation by
December 31, 2005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 30, 2005.

5. Xcel Energy Services Inc.

[Docket No. ER05-1307-001]

    Take notice that on November 3, 2005, Xcel Energy Services Inc.
(XES) tendered for filing revised tariff sheets to the Xcel Energy
Operating Companies Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff, First
Revised Volume No. 1. XES states that these revised tariff sheets are
being submitted on behalf of its operating companies Northern States
Power Company--Minnesota and Northern States Power Company--Wisconsin
and Southwestern Public Service Company.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 25, 2005.

6. Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC

[Docket Nos. ER05-1472-001 and EC05-137-000]

    Take notice that on November 4, 2005, Michigan Electric
Transmission Company, LLC (METC) submitted revisions to its previously
filed September 12, 2005, Interconnection Facilities Agreement between
METC and the Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. METC requests an
effective date of November 11, 2005.
    METC states that copies were served on Wolverine and the Midwest
ISO.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 25, 2005.

7. Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC

[Docket No. ER06-4-001]

    Take notice that on November 4, 2005, Michigan Electric
Transmission Company, LLC (METC) submitted revisions to its previously
filed Interconnection Facilities Agreement (IFA) between METC and the
Wolverines Power Supply Cooperative, Inc. (Wolverine). METC requests an
effective date for the IFA of October 4, 2005. Copies of this filing
were served on Wolverine and on the Midwest Independent Transmission
System Operator, Inc.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 22, 2005.

8. Arizona Public Service Company

[Docket No. ER06-134-000]

    Take notice that on November 2, 2005, the Arizona Public Service
Company (APS) submitted for filing a Notice of Cancellation of it FERC
Electric Rate Schedule No. 247.
    APS states that copies of this filing have been served upon
PacifiCorp and the Arizona Corporation Commission.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 23, 2005.

9. Kentucky Utilities Company; Louisville Gas and Electric Company; and
LG&E Energy LLC

[Docket Nos. ES06-3-000 and EC06-23-000]

    Take notice that on October 31, 2006, Louisville Gas and Electric
Company (LG&E), Kentucky Utilities Company (KU), and LG&E Energy LLC
(LG&E Energy) tendered for filing an application requesting
authorization, pursuant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act, for KU
to issue debt securities in an amount not to exceed $400 million
outstanding at any one time, and authorization, pursuant to section 203
of the Federal Power Act, for the purchase or acquisition by LG&E and
LG&E Energy of debt of its affiliate

KU in an amount not to exceed $400 million outstanding at any one time.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 22, 2005.

10. Louisville Gas and Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities Company;
and LG&E Energy LLC

[Docket Nos. ES06-4-000 and EC06-22-000]

    Take notice that on October 31, 2005, Louisville Gas and Electric
Company (LG&E), Kentucky Utilities Company (KU and LG&E Energy LLC, (LG
& E Energy), tendered for filing an application requesting authorizing
pursuant to section 204 of the Federal Power Act, for LG&E to issue
debt securities in an amount not to exceed $400 million outstanding at
any one time, and authorization, pursuant to section 203 of the Federal
Power Act, for the purchase or acquisition by KU and LE&E Energy of
debt of its affiliate LG&E in an amount not to exceed $400 million
outstanding at any one time.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 22, 2005.

Standard Paragraph

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of 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 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6471 Filed 11-23-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P