[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 121 (Friday, June 24, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37776-37783]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13377]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0291; EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663; FRL-9651-01-R9]

Approval of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Arizona; 2015
Ozone Interstate Transport Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state implementation
plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of air quality in other states. The State of Arizona
submitted a SIP revision to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
to address these requirements for the 2015 ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). The EPA is proposing to approve Arizona's
SIP submission as meeting the requirement that the Arizona SIP contain
adequate provisions to prohibit emissions that will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0291 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is

restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system).
    There are two dockets supporting this action, EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0291
and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663. Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0291 contains
information specific to Arizona, including this notice of proposed
rulemaking. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663 contains additional
modeling files, emissions inventory files, technical support documents,
and other relevant supporting documentation regarding interstate
transport of emissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that are being used to
support this action. All comments regarding information in either of
these dockets are to be made in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0291. For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Leers, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Statutory Background
    B. The EPA's 4-Step Interstate Transport Regulatory Framework
    C. The EPA's Ozone Transport Modeling Information
    D. The EPA's Approach To Evaluating Interstate Transport SIPs
for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
II. Arizona's Submission
III. The EPA's Evaluation
IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Statutory Background

    On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ The requirements in
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), otherwise known as the ``interstate
transport'' or ``good neighbor'' provision, generally require SIPs to
contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions activities
from having certain adverse air quality effects on other states due to
interstate transport of pollution. There are two so-called ``prongs''
within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which require that the SIP for a
new or revised NAAQS contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source
or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting air
pollutants in amounts that will significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The EPA and states
must give independent significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when
evaluating downwind air quality problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 0.070 ppm is
equivalent to 70 ppb.
    \2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs, and the applicable elements
under section 110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure
requirements.
    \3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-911 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The EPA's 4-Step Interstate Transport Regulatory Framework

    The EPA is using the 4-step interstate transport framework (or ``4-
step framework'') to evaluate the states' SIP submittals addressing the
interstate transport provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA has
addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior ozone NAAQS in several
regional regulatory actions, including the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate transport with respect to the
1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter
standards,\4\ and the CSAPR Update \5\ and the Revised CSAPR Update,
both of which addressed the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals,
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \5\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
    \6\ In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent that it failed to require upwind states
to eliminate their significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must come into compliance
with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin
v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The Revised CSAPR Update
for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS at 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021) responded
to the remand of the CSAPR Update in Wisconsin and the vacatur of a
separate rule, the ``CSAPR Close-Out'' at 83 FR 65878 (December 21,
2018), in New York v. EPA, 781 F. App. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the development and implementation of the CSAPR rulemakings
and other prior regional rulemakings pursuant to the interstate
transport provision,\7\ the EPA, working in partnership with states,
developed the following 4-step framework to evaluate a state's
obligations to eliminate interstate transport emissions under the
interstate transport provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1) identify
monitoring sites that are projected to have problems attaining and/or
maintaining the NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment and/or maintenance
receptors); (2) identify states that impact those air quality problems
in other (i.e., downwind) states sufficiently such that the states are
considered ``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and
analysis; (3) identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any),
applying a multifactor analysis, to eliminate each linked upwind
state's significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations identified in Step 1; and (4)
adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to achieve those
emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other regional
rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the NOX
SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The EPA's Ozone Transport Modeling Information

    In general, the EPA has performed nationwide air quality modeling
to project ozone design values that are used in combination with
measured data to identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors. To
quantify the contribution of emissions from specific upwind states to
2023 ozone design values at the identified downwind nonattainment and
maintenance

receptors, the EPA performed nationwide, state-level ozone source
apportionment modeling for 2023. The source apportionment modeling
estimated contributions to ozone concentrations at receptors from
precursor emissions of anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds in individual upwind states.
    The EPA has released several documents containing projected ozone
design values, contributions, and information relevant to evaluating
interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS. First, on
January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of data availability (NODA)
in which we requested comment on preliminary interstate ozone transport
data including projected ozone design values and interstate
contributions for 2023 using a 2011 base year platform.\8\ In the NODA,
the EPA used the year 2023 as the analytic year for this preliminary
modeling because 2023 aligns with the expected attainment year for
``Moderate'' ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\9\ On
October 27, 2017, the EPA released a memorandum (``October 2017
memorandum'') containing updated modeling data for 2023. The October
2017 memorandum incorporated changes made in response to comments on
the NODA and noted that the modeling may be useful for states
developing SIPs to address interstate transport obligations for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.\10\ On March 27, 2018, the EPA issued a memorandum
(``March 2018 memorandum'') noting that the same 2023 modeling data
released in the October 2017 memorandum could also be useful for
identifying potential downwind air quality problems with respect to the
2015 ozone NAAQS at Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport
framework.\11\ The March 2018 memorandum also included the then newly
available contribution modeling data to assist states in evaluating
their impact on potential downwind air quality problems for the 2015
ozone NAAQS under Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport
framework.\12\ The EPA subsequently issued two more memoranda in August
and October 2018, providing additional information to states developing
interstate transport SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
concerning, respectively, potential contribution thresholds that may be
appropriate to apply in Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport
framework, and considerations for identifying downwind areas that may
have problems maintaining the standard at Step 1 of the 4-step
interstate transport framework.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
82 FR 1733 (January 6, 2017).
    \9\ Id. at 1735.
    \10\ EPA, Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(October 27, 2017). The October 2017 memorandum is available at
https://www.regulations.gov under docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663
or at https://www.epa.gov/node/194139/.
    \11\ EPA, Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
(March 27, 2018). The March 2018 memorandum is available at https://www.regulations.gov under docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663 or at
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
    \12\ The March 2018 memorandum, however, provided, ``While the
information in this memorandum and the associated air quality
analysis data could be used to inform the development of these SIPs,
the information is not a final determination regarding states'
obligations under the good neighbor provision. Any such
determination would be made through notice-and-comment rulemaking.''
    \13\ EPA, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (August 31, 2018), and Considerations for
Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (October 19, 2018). The August 2018 and October 2018
memoranda are available at https://www.regulations.gov under docket
ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663 or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the release of the modeling data shared in the March 2018
memorandum, the EPA performed updated modeling using a 2016-based
emissions modeling platform (the ``2016v1'' platform). This emissions
platform was developed under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization
(MJO)/state collaborative project.\14\ This collaborative project was a
multi-year joint effort by the EPA, MJOs, and states to develop a new,
more recent emissions platform for use by the EPA and states in
regulatory modeling as an improvement from the dated 2011-based
platform that the EPA had used to project ozone design values and
contribution data provided in the 2017 and 2018 memoranda. The EPA used
the 2016v1 emissions to project ozone design values and contributions
for 2023. On October 30, 2020, in the notice of proposed rulemaking for
the Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA released and accepted public comment
on 2023 modeling that used the 2016v1 emissions platform.\15\ Although
the Revised CSAPR Update addressed transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
the projected design values and contributions from the 2016v1 platform
are also useful for identifying downwind ozone problems and linkages
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The results of this modeling, as well as the underlying
modeling files, are available at https://www.regulations.gov under
docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
    \15\ 85 FR 68964, 68981 (October 30, 2020).
    \16\ EPA, Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update (March
2021). This technical support document is available at https://www.regulations.gov under docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the final Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA made further
updates to the 2016 emissions platform to include mobile emissions from
the EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator MOVES3 model \17\ and
updated emissions projections for electric generating units that
reflect the emissions reductions from the Revised CSAPR Update, recent
information on plant closures, and other sector trends. Details about
the updated emissions platform (the ``2016v2'' platform) are described
in the emissions modeling technical support document (TSD) for this
proposed rule.\18\ The EPA performed air quality modeling of the 2016v2
emissions using the most recent public release version of the
Comprehensive Air-quality Model with extensions (CAMx) photochemical
modeling, version 7.10.\19\ The EPA now proposes to primarily rely on
the updated modeling for the 2023 analytic year based on the newly
available 2016v2 emissions platform (generally referred to herein as
the 2016v2 modeling for 2023) in evaluating these submissions with
respect to Steps 1 and 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework.
By using the updated modeling results, the EPA is using the most
current and technically appropriate information for this proposed
rulemaking. Section III of this document and the Air Quality Modeling
TSD for 2015 Ozone NAAQS Transport

SIP Proposed Actions, included in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663
for this proposal, contain additional detail on the EPA's 2016v2
modeling. In this document, the EPA is accepting public comment on this
updated 2023 modeling, which uses a 2016v2 emissions platform. Comments
on the EPA's air quality modeling should be submitted in the Regional
docket for this action at docket ID no. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0291. Comments
are not being accepted to docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Additional details and documentation related to the MOVES3
model can be found at https://www.epa.gov/moves/latest-version-motor-vehicle-emission-simulator-moves.
    \18\ EPA, Technical Support Document (TSD) Preparation of
Emissions Inventories for the 2016v2 North American Emissions
Modeling Platform (February 2022). This technical support document
is available at https://www.regulations.gov under docket ID no. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
    \19\ Ramboll Environment and Health, January 2021, www.camx.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. The EPA's Approach To Evaluating Interstate Transport SIPs for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS

    The EPA proposes to apply a consistent set of policy judgments
across all states for purposes of evaluating interstate transport
obligations and the approvability of interstate transport SIP
submittals for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. These policy judgments reflect
consistency with relevant case law and past agency practice as
reflected in the CSAPR and related rulemakings. Nationwide consistency
in approach is particularly important in the context of interstate
ozone transport, which is a regional-scale pollution problem involving
many smaller contributors. Effective policy solutions to the problem of
interstate ozone transport dating back to the NOX SIP Call
\20\ have necessitated the application of a uniform framework of policy
judgments in order to ensure an ``efficient and equitable''
approach.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998).
    \21\ See EME Homer City Generation, LP v. EPA, 572 U.S. 489, 519
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the March, August, and October 2018 memoranda, the EPA
recognized that states may be able to establish alternative approaches
to addressing their interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS that vary from a nationally uniform framework. The EPA emphasized
in these memoranda, however, that such alternative approaches must be
technically justified and appropriate in light of the facts and
circumstances of each particular state's submittal. In general, the EPA
continues to believe that deviation from a nationally consistent
approach to ozone transport must be substantially justified and have a
well-documented technical basis that is consistent with relevant case
law. Where states submit SIPs that rely on any such potential
flexibilities that have been identified or suggested in the past, the
EPA will evaluate whether the state adequately justified the technical
and legal basis for doing so.
    The EPA notes that certain concepts included in an attachment to
the March 2018 memorandum require unique consideration, and these ideas
do not constitute agency guidance with respect to transport obligations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Attachment A to the March 2018 memorandum
identified a preliminary list of potential flexibilities that could
potentially inform SIP development.\22\ However, the EPA made clear in
that attachment that the list of ideas were not suggestions endorsed by
the Agency, but rather ``comments provided in various forums'' on which
the EPA sought ``feedback from interested stakeholders.'' \23\ Further,
the attachment stated that the ``EPA is not at this time making any
determination that the ideas discussed below are consistent with the
requirements of the CAA, nor are we specifically recommending that
states use these approaches.'' \24\ Attachment A to the March 2018
memorandum, therefore, does not constitute agency guidance, but was
intended to generate further discussion around potential approaches to
addressing ozone transport among interested stakeholders. To the extent
that states seek to develop or rely on these ideas in support of their
SIP submittals, the EPA will thoroughly review the technical and legal
justifications for doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ March 2018 memorandum, Attachment A.
    \23\ Id. at A-1.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The remainder of this section describes the EPA's proposed
framework with respect to analytic year, definition of nonattainment
and maintenance receptors, selection of contribution threshold, and
multifactor control strategy assessment.
1. Selection of Analytic Year
    In general, the states and the EPA must implement the interstate
transport provision in a manner consistent with the provisions of title
I of the CAA.\25\ This requires, among other things, that these
obligations are addressed consistently with the timeframes for downwind
areas to meet their CAA obligations. With respect to ozone NAAQS, under
CAA section 181(a), this means obligations must be addressed ``as
expeditiously as practicable'' and no later than the schedule of
attainment dates provided in CAA section 181(a)(1).\26\ Several D.C.
Circuit court decisions address the issue of the relevant analytic year
for the purposes of evaluating ozone transport air-quality problems. On
September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Wisconsin v.
EPA, remanding the CSAPR Update to the extent that it failed to require
upwind states to eliminate their significant contribution by the next
applicable attainment date by which downwind states must come into
compliance with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 181(a).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    \26\ For attainment dates for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, refer to CAA
section 181(a), 40 CFR 51.1303, and Additional Air Quality
Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective August 3, 2018).
    \27\ Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Maryland v.
EPA that cited the Wisconsin decision in holding that the EPA must
assess the impact of interstate transport on air quality at the next
downwind attainment date, including ``Marginal'' area attainment dates,
in evaluating the basis for the EPA's denial of a petition under CAA
section 126(b).\28\ The court noted that ``section 126(b) incorporates
the Good Neighbor Provision,'' and, therefore, the ``EPA must find a
violation [of section 126] if an upwind source will significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment at the next downwind attainment
deadline. Therefore, the agency must evaluate downwind air quality at
that deadline, not at some later date.'' \29\ The EPA interprets the
court's holding in Maryland as requiring the states and the EPA, under
the interstate transport provision, to assess downwind air quality as
expeditiously as practicable and no later than the next applicable
attainment date,\30\ which is now the Moderate area attainment date
under CAA section 181 for ozone nonattainment. The Moderate area
attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2024.\31\ The EPA
believes that 2023 is now the appropriate year for analysis of
interstate transport obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because the
2023 ozone season is the last relevant ozone

season during which emissions reductions achieved in linked upwind
states could assist downwind states in meeting the August 3, 2024
Moderate area attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1203-1204 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
    \29\ Id. at 1204 (emphasis added).
    \30\ We note that the court in Maryland did not have occasion to
evaluate circumstances in which the EPA may determine that an upwind
linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at Steps 1 and 2 of
the interstate transport framework by a particular attainment date,
but for reasons of impossibility or profound uncertainty, the Agency
is unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by that date. See
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C. Circuit noted in Wisconsin
that, upon a sufficient showing, these circumstances may warrant
flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the interstate transport
provision.
    \31\ CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; Additional Air Quality
Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective August 3, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA recognizes that the attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021.
Under the Maryland holding, any emissions reductions necessary to
satisfy interstate transport obligations should have been implemented
by no later than this date. At the time of the statutory deadline for
states to submit interstate transport SIPs (i.e., October 1, 2018),
many states relied upon the EPA's modeling of the year 2023, and no
state provided an alternative analysis using a 2021 analytic year (or
the prior 2020 ozone season). However, the EPA must act on SIP
submittals using the information available at the time it takes such
action. In this circumstance, the EPA does not believe it would be
appropriate to evaluate states' obligations under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) as of an attainment date that is wholly in the past,
because the EPA interprets the interstate transport provision as
forward looking.\32\ Consequently, in this proposal, the EPA will use
the analytical year of 2023 to evaluate Arizona's CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 86 FR 23054, 23074; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at
322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Step 1 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    In Step 1 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, the EPA
identifies monitoring sites that are projected to have problems
attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS in the 2023 analytic year. Where
the EPA's analysis shows that a site does not fall under the definition
of a nonattainment or maintenance receptor, that site is excluded from
further analysis under the EPA's 4-step interstate transport framework.
Where the EPA's analysis shows that a site does meet the definition of
a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2023, we proceed to the next
step of our 4-step interstate transport framework by identifying the
upwind state's contribution to those receptors.
    The EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in this action is consistent with the approach
used in previous transport rulemakings. The EPA's approach gives
independent consideration to both the ``contribute significantly to
nonattainment'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's
direction in North Carolina v. EPA.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d at 910-911 (holding
that the EPA must give ``independent significance'' to each prong of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purpose of this proposal, the EPA identifies nonattainment
receptors as those monitoring sites that are projected to have average
design values that exceed the NAAQS and that are also measuring
nonattainment based on the most recent monitored design values. This
approach is consistent with prior transport rulemakings, such as the
CSAPR Update, where the EPA defined nonattainment receptors as those
areas that both currently measure nonattainment and that the EPA
projects will be in nonattainment in the future analytic year (i.e.,
2023).\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). This same concept,
relying on both current monitoring data and modeling to define
nonattainment receptor, was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR 25241,
25249 (January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913-
914 (affirming as reasonable the EPA's approach to defining
nonattainment in CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in this proposal, the EPA identifies a receptor to be
a ``maintenance'' receptor for the purpose of defining interference
with maintenance consistent with the method used in the CSAPR and
upheld by the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v.
EPA.\35\ Specifically, the EPA identified maintenance receptors as
those receptors that would have difficulty maintaining the relevant
NAAQS in a scenario that takes into account historical variability in
air quality at that receptor. The variability in air quality was
determined by evaluating the ``maximum'' future design value at each
receptor based on a projection of the maximum measured design value
over the relevant period. The EPA interprets the projected maximum
future design value to be a potential future air quality outcome
consistent with the meteorology that yielded maximum measured
concentrations in the ambient data set analyzed for that receptor
(i.e., meteorology conducive to ozone formation). The EPA also
recognizes that previously experienced meteorological conditions (e.g.,
dominant wind direction, temperatures, air mass patterns) promoting
ozone formation that led to maximum concentrations in the measured data
may reoccur in the future. The maximum design value gives a reasonable
projection of future air quality at the receptor under a scenario in
which such conditions do, in fact, reoccur. The projected maximum
design value is used to identify upwind emissions that, under those
circumstances, could interfere with the downwind area's ability to
maintain the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136
(D.C. Cir. 2015). See also 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). The CSAPR
Update and Revised CSAPR Update also used this approach. See also 81
FR 74504 and 86 FR 23054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that nonattainment receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, the EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only''
to refer to those receptors that are not nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the concepts for maintenance receptors, as described
previously in this section, the EPA identifies ``maintenance-only''
receptors as those monitoring sites that have projected average design
values above the level of the applicable NAAQS, but that are not
currently measuring nonattainment based on the most recent official
design values. In addition, those monitoring sites with projected
average design values below the NAAQS, but with projected maximum
design values above the NAAQS are also identified as ``maintenance-
only'' receptors, even if they are currently measuring nonattainment
based on the most recent official design values.
3. Step 2 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    In Step 2 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, the EPA
quantifies the contribution of each upwind state to each nonattainment
and maintenance receptor (as determined in Step 1) in the 2023 analytic
year. The contribution metric used in Step 2 is defined as the average
impact from each state to each receptor on the days with the highest
ozone concentrations at the receptor based on the 2023 modeling. If a
state's contribution value does not equal or exceed the threshold of 1
percent of the NAAQS (i.e., 0.70 parts per billion [ppb] for the 2015
ozone NAAQS), the upwind state is not ``linked'' to a downwind air
quality problem, and the EPA therefore concludes that the state does
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in the downwind states. However, if a state's
contribution equals or exceeds the 1 percent threshold, the state's
emissions are further evaluated in Step 3 considering both air quality
and cost as part of a multi-factor analysis to determine what, if any,
emissions might be deemed ``significant'' and must therefore be
eliminated under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA is proposing
to rely on the 1 percent

threshold for the purpose of evaluating a state's contribution to
nonattainment or maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (i.e., 0.70 ppb)
at downwind receptors. This is consistent with the Step 2 approach that
the EPA applied in CSAPR for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, which has
subsequently been applied in the CSAPR Update when evaluating
interstate transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA
continues to find 1 percent to be an appropriate threshold. For ozone,
as the EPA found in the Clean Air Interstate Rule, CSAPR, and CSAPR
Update, a portion of the nonattainment problems from anthropogenic
sources in the United States results from the combined impact of
relatively small contributions from many upwind states along with
contributions from in-state sources and, in some cases, substantially
larger contributions from a subset of particular upwind states. The
EPA's analysis shows that much of the ozone transport problem being
analyzed in this proposed rule is still the result of the collective
impacts of contributions from many upwind states. Therefore,
application of a consistent contribution threshold is necessary to
identify those upwind states that should have responsibility for
addressing their contribution to the downwind nonattainment and
maintenance problems to which they collectively contribute. Continuing
to use 1 percent of the NAAQS as the screening metric to evaluate
collective contribution from many upwind states also allows the EPA
(and states) to apply a consistent framework to evaluate interstate
emissions transport under the interstate transport provision from one
NAAQS to the next.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See 81 FR 74504, 74518. See also 86 FR 23054, 23085
(reviewing and explaining rationale from CSAPR) and 76 FR 48208,
48237-48238 (for selection of 1 percent threshold).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's August 2018 memorandum recognized that in certain
circumstances a state may be able to establish that an alternative
contribution threshold of 1 ppb is justifiable. Where a state relies on
this alternative threshold, and where that state determined it was not
linked at Step 2 using the alternative threshold, the EPA will evaluate
whether the state provided a technically sound assessment of the
appropriateness of using this alternative threshold based on the facts
and circumstances underlying its application in the particular SIP
submission.
4. Step 3 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    Consistent with the EPA's longstanding approach to eliminating
significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with
maintenance, at Step 3 of the 4-step interstate transport framework,
states linked at Steps 1 and 2 are generally expected to prepare a
multifactor assessment of potential emissions controls. The EPA's
analysis at Step 3 in prior federal actions addressing interstate
transport requirements has primarily focused on an evaluation of cost-
effectiveness of potential emissions controls (on a marginal cost-per-
ton basis), the total emissions reductions that may be achieved by
requiring such controls (if applied across all linked upwind states),
and an evaluation of the air quality impacts such emissions reductions
would have on the downwind receptors to which a state is linked; other
factors may potentially be relevant if adequately supported. In
general, where the EPA's or alternative air quality and contribution
modeling establishes that a state is linked at Steps 1 and 2, it will
be insufficient at Step 3 for a state to merely point to its existing
rules requiring control measures as a basis for approval. In general,
the emissions-reducing effects of all existing emissions control
requirements are already reflected in the air quality results of the
modeling for Steps 1 and 2. If the state is shown to still be linked to
one or more downwind receptor(s), states must provide a well-documented
evaluation determining whether their emissions constitute significant
contribution or interference with maintenance by evaluating additional
available control opportunities by preparing a multifactor assessment.
While the EPA has not prescribed a particular method for this
assessment, the EPA expects states at a minimum to present a sufficient
technical evaluation. This would typically include information on
emissions sources, applicable control technologies, emissions
reductions, costs, cost effectiveness, and downwind air quality impacts
of the estimated reductions, before concluding that no additional
emissions controls should be required.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ As examples of general approaches for how such an analysis
could be conducted for their sources, states could look to the CSAPR
Update (81 FR 74504, 74539-74551), CSAPR (76 FR 48208, 48246-48263),
CAIR (70 FR 25162, 25195-25229), or the NOX SIP Call (63
FR 57356, 57399-57405). See also the Revised CSAPR Update (86 FR
23054, 23086-23116). Consistently across these rulemakings, the EPA
has developed emissions inventories, analyzed different levels of
control stringency at different cost thresholds, and assessed
resulting downwind air quality improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Step 4 of the 4-Step Interstate Transport Framework
    At Step 4 of the 4-step interstate transport framework, states (or
the EPA) develop permanent and federally enforceable control strategies
to achieve the emissions reductions determined to be necessary at Step
3 to eliminate significant contribution to nonattainment or
interference with maintenance of the NAAQS. For a state linked at Steps
1 and 2 to rely on an emissions control measure at Step 3 to address
its interstate transport obligations, that measure must be included in
the state's SIP so that it is permanent and federally enforceable.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See CAA section 110(a)(2)(D) (``Each such [SIP] shall . . .
contain adequate provisions . . .''). See also CAA section
110(a)(2)(A); Committee for a Better Arvin v. EPA, 786 F.3d 1169,
1175-1176 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that measures relied on by state
to meet CAA requirements must be included in the SIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Arizona's Submission

    On September 24, 2018, the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) submitted to the EPA the ``Arizona State Implementation
Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (``the 2018
Ozone I-SIP submittal'') addressing the infrastructure requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\39\ In this proposed
rulemaking, the EPA is evaluating the section of the 2018 Ozone I-SIP
submittal addressing CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Letter dated September 24, 2018, from Timothy S. Franquist,
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Michael Stoker, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX, Subject: ``Submittal of the Arizona
State Implementation Plan Revision under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2018 Ozone I-SIP submittal describes the 4-step framework
established by the EPA to address the good neighbor provision.\40\
Arizona references the results of the ozone modeling completed by the
EPA using CAMx version 6.40, made available in the March 2018
memorandum. Arizona noted that the modeling demonstrates that Arizona
is not shown to contribute greater than 1 percent of the NAAQS (i.e.,
0.70 ppb) to any of the modeled nonattainment or maintenance receptors
in other states.\41\ Despite asserting that ``Arizona still maintains
that the 1 percent threshold is poorly suited for determining
contribution obligations in the Southwestern US,'' Arizona relies

on the 1 percent of the NAAQS contribution threshold at Step 2.\42\
Based on the model results, Arizona finds that it does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or maintenance receptors in other states
and that it is not necessary to identify emissions reductions or adopt
any permanent or enforceable controls under the interstate transport
provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\43\ Arizona also asserts that the
Arizona SIP contains adequate provisions to ensure that air emissions
in Arizona will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state
in the future.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 2018 Ozone I-SIP submittal, 12.
    \41\ Id. at 13.
    \42\ Id.
    \43\ Id.
    \44\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) and 40 CFR
51.102 require states to provide reasonable notice and an opportunity
for a public hearing prior to adoption of SIP revisions. Section
110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is
complete within 60 days of receipt. Any plan that the EPA does not
affirmatively determine to be complete or incomplete will become
complete by operation of law six months after the day of submittal. A
finding of completeness does not approve the submittal as part of the
SIP, nor does it indicate that the submittal is approvable. It does
start a 12-month clock for the EPA to act on the SIP submittal.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See CAA section 110(k)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2018 Ozone I-SIP submittal documents the public review process
followed by Arizona prior to its submittal to the EPA as a revision to
the SIP. Appendix A of the 2018 Ozone I-SIP submittal includes
documentation of a notice of public hearing and opportunity for comment
on the SIP submittal. The notice of public hearing and opportunity for
comment on the SIP submittal was provided on August 6 and 7, 2018. The
public hearing for the SIP submittal was held on September 6, 2018. The
public process documentation in Appendix A of the 2018 Ozone I-SIP
submittal includes a meeting agenda, sign-in sheet, presiding officer
certification, and hearing transcript for the September 6, 2018 public
hearing and a responsiveness summary indicating that no oral or written
comments were received by ADEQ during the 30-day public review period.

III. The EPA's Evaluation

    The 2018 Ozone I-SIP submittal relies on the 4-step framework and
the analytic year 2023 contribution modeling results provided in the
March 2018 memorandum to conclude that Arizona does not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state.
    As described in section I of this proposal, the EPA performed air
quality modeling to project design values and contributions for 2023
using the 2016v2 emissions platform. The EPA proposes to rely primarily
on this updated modeling to evaluate Arizona's transport SIP submittal.
The design values and contributions from the updated modeling were
examined to determine if Arizona contributes at or above the threshold
of 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind
nonattainment or maintenance receptor.\46\ The data \47\ indicate that
the highest contributions in 2023 from Arizona to downwind
nonattainment and maintenance-only receptors are 0.40 ppb and 0.21 ppb,
respectively.\48\ The EPA's evaluation of measured and monitored data
and contribution values in 2023 indicates that the contribution to
ozone concentrations in other states from emissions in Arizona will not
exceed the contribution threshold of 0.70 ppb. The results of the EPA's
evaluation are consistent with the conclusion drawn by Arizona in the
2018 Ozone I-SIP submittal that emissions from sources in Arizona will
not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ While the EPA does not, in this action, approve of the
state's suggestion or rationale to rely on an alternative threshold,
based on the state's contributions of less than 1 percent to
projected downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors, and the
state's reliance on a 1 percent threshold in its submittal, the
consideration of an alternative threshold is inconsequential to our
action on this SIP submittal. The EPA is proposing to approve
Arizona's SIP submission on the basis of the use of a 1 percent
contribution threshold at Step 2.
    \47\ Design values and contributions at individual monitoring
sites nationwide are provide in the file
2016v2_DVs_state_contributions.xlsx which is included in docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0663.
    \48\ The EPA's analysis indicates that Arizona will have a 0.40
ppb impact at the projected nonattainment receptor in Jefferson
County, Colorado (site ID 80590011), which has a monitored 2020
design value of 80 ppb, a 2023 projected average design value of
73.8 ppb, and a 2023 projected maximum design value of 74.4 ppb.
Furthermore, the EPA's analysis indicates that Arizona will have a
0.21 ppb impact at the projected maintenance-only receptor in Clark
County, Nevada (site ID 320030075), which has a monitored 2020
design value of 74 ppb, a 2023 projected average design value of
70.0 ppb, and a 2023 projected maximum design value of 71.0 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Based on the EPA's evaluation of the impact of air emissions from
Arizona to downwind states using 2023 analytic year modeling as
described in this notice, the EPA is proposing to approve chapter 2.4.1
of Arizona's 2018 Ozone I-SIP submittal as meeting the interstate
transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015
ozone NAAQS. The EPA is seeking public comment on the issues discussed
in this proposed rule. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal for the next 30 days.

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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state
plans 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

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, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 14, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-13377 Filed 6-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 82)]
[Notices]
[Page 25171]
[DOCID:fr28ap06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM06-11-000]

Financial Accounting, Reporting and Records Retention
Requirements Under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 2005;
Notice of Technical Conference

April 21, 2006.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) staff will
hold a technical conference in the above-referenced proceeding on June
21, 2006, at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 in the Commission Meeting Room from 9
a.m. until 4:30 p.m. EDT. All interested persons are invited to attend.
There is no registration fee to attend.
    The purpose of the conference is to identify the issues associated
with the proposed Uniform System of Accounts for Centralized Service
Companies, the proposed records retention requirements for holding
companies and service companies, and the revised Form No. 60. The
technical conference will develop information for use by Commission
staff in preparing a final rule in this proceeding.
    Interested persons wishing to participate in the technical
conference are asked to notify Commission staff electronically at
https://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/registration/usoa-06-21-speaker-form.asp

by May 15, 2006.
    Prospective attendees and participants are urged to watch for
further notices; a detailed agenda will be issued in advance of the
conference.
    FERC conferences and meetings are accessible under section 508 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail 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.
    Questions about the conference should be directed to: Julia A.
Lake, Office of the General Counsel--Energy Markets and Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-6392 Filed 4-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63266-63267]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 9003-011]

Northern States Power Company; Notice of Application for
Amendment of Exemption, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Application non-capacity amendment of
exemption.
    b. Project No.: 9003-011.
    c. Date Filed: August 31, 2020.
    d. Exemptee: Northern States Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Riverdale Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Apple River in St. Croix
County, Wisconsin.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Exemptee Contact: Matthew Miller, Xcel Energy, 1414 West
Hamilton Avenue, P.O. Box 8, Eau Claire, WI 54702-0008,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Rebecca Martin,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, interventions, and protests
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests:
November 2, 2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-9003-011. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record. The Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person whose name appears on the official service list for the project.
Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to rehabilitate
the project's spillway gates, spillway apron, and the upstream and
downstream right embankments. The improvements are needed to increase
spillway capacity and stabilize the right embankment. The improvements
are required by the Commission's Division of Dam Safety Chicago
Regional Office.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website 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. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list

prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18
CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: October 1, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-22157 Filed 10-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 16840]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06607]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[OMB Control No. 3235-0325, SEC File No. 270-288]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Form F-4.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget the request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Form F-4 (17 CFR 239.34) is used by foreign issuers to register
securities in business combinations, reorganizations and exchange
offers pursuant to federal securities laws pursuant to the Securities
Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.). The information collected is
intended to ensure that the information required to be filed by the
Commission permits verification of compliance with securities law
requirements and assures the public availability of such information.
The information provided is mandatory and all information is made
available to the public upon request. Form F-4 takes approximately
1,457 hours per response and is filed by approximately 68 respondents.
We estimate that 25% of the 1,457 hours per response (364.25 hours) is
prepared by the registrant for a total annual reporting burden of
24,769 hours (364.25 hours per response x 68 responses).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov .
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100
F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: March 20, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-06607 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1568-1570]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-8431; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-128-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the network
interface installed between the Information Management System (IMS)
6000 unit and the Cabin Entertainment System (CES) network could affect
the Aircraft Control Domain (ACD) and result in the transmission of
misleading navigational information to the flightcrew. This proposed AD
would require inspecting the network interface installation between the
IMS and the CES, and disconnecting the installation, if necessary. We
are proposing this AD to prevent the transmission of misleading
navigational information, which could adversely affect the ability of
the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 29,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
8431; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer,
Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-8431;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-128-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2015-19, dated July 20, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was discovered that on certain aeroplanes, the network
interface installed between the Information Management System (IMS)
6000 unit and the Cabin Entertainment System (CES) network may
affect the Aircraft Control Domain (ACD). This could potentially
compromise the operational integrity of the avionics system and
result in misleading navigational information to the flight crew.
Misleading navigational information could have adverse effects on
the safe operation of the aeroplane.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the [general visual] inspection [to
determine if pins are present at positions 25, 27, 48, and 50] and
disconnection, as required, of the network interface installation
between the IMS and the CES.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http:/
/

www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
8431.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information, which
describes procedures for an inspection of the network interface
installation between the IMS and CES and disconnection of the
installation.
     Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, Revision 02, dated June 18,
2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
     Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, Revision 02, dated June 18,
2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 77 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $6,545, or $85 per
product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on action would
take about 3 work-hours, for a cost of $255 per product. We have no way
of determining the number of aircraft that might need this action.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-8431; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-128-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 29, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes, certificated
in any category, specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes, serial numbers 9381, 9432
through 9708 inclusive; 9711 through 9718 inclusive; and 9720
through 9730 inclusive.
    (2) Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes, serial numbers 9386, 9401, 9445
through 9707 inclusive; 9710 through 9717 inclusive; and 9722, 9732,
9734, and 9737.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the network
interface installed between the Information Management System (IMS)
6000 unit and the Cabin Entertainment System (CES) network could
affect the Aircraft Control Domain (ACD) and result in the
transmission of misleading navigational information to the
flightcrew. We are issuing this AD to prevent the transmission of
misleading navigational information, which could adversely affect
the ability of the flightcrew to maintain the safe flight and
landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection and Disconnection, if Necessary

    Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD: Do a
general visual inspection of the network interface installation
between the IMS and CES to determine if pins are present at
positions 25, 27, 48, and 50; and if any pins are present, before
further flight, disconnect the installation; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information
specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, Revision 02, dated
June 18, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, Revision 02, dated
June 18, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the

effective date of this AD using the service information specified in
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3), and (h)(4) of this AD, as
applicable. This service information is not incorporated by
reference in this AD.
    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, dated February 23,
2015.
    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-5005, Revision 01, dated
March 20, 2015.
    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, dated February 23,
2015.
    (4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-46-6005, Revision 01, dated
March 20, 2015.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-19, dated July 20,
2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8431.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 29, 2015.
Philip Forde,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-33281 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62882-62883]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21920]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.http://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_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Presenter or
          Docket No.                File date            requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibited:
    1. CP15-558-000...........          8-22-2016  Jill S. Dodds.
    2. CP16-96-000............          8-22-2016  Lidia E. Mino.
    3. CP15-558-000...........          8-22-2016  Janice Zuzov.
    4. CP15-558-000...........          8-23-2016  Jill S. Dodds.
Exempt:
    1. CP16-10-000............          8-17-2016  U.S. Senator Mark R.
                                                    Warner.
    2. CP15-520-000...........          8-23-2016  FERC Staff.\1\
    3. P-1494-000.............          8-25-2016  U.S. Senator James
                                                    Lankford.
    4. CP15-558-000...........          8-25-2016  State of New Jersey
                                                    Assemblyman Erik
                                                    Peterson.
    5. CP15-554-000...........          8-25-2016  U.S. House
                                                    Representative Bob
                                                    Goodlatte.
    6. CP16-9-000.............          8-25-2016  Town of Stoughton,
                                                    Massachusetts Board
                                                    of Selectmen.
    7. CP15-558-000...........          8-30-2016  State of New Jersey
                                                    Senator Shirley K.
                                                    Turner.
    8. CP13-83-000............          8-30-2016  U.S. Senate.\2\
    9. CP16-22-000............          8-31-2016  FERC Staff.\3\
    10. P-10810-000...........          8-31-2016  U.S. House
                                                    Representative John
                                                    Moolenaar.
    11. CP16-22-000...........           9-1-2016  FERC Staff.\4\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memo reporting phone call on August 1, 2016 with James Taylor,
  Supervisor with the Township of Lenox.
\2\ Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.
\3\ Email dated July 21, 2016 with Jonathan Strong from Technology
  Engineering Group, LLC.
\4\ Email dated August 22, 2016 with Leatra Harper from FreshWater
  Accountability Project.

    Dated: September 6, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-21920 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P