[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50651-50660]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20668]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0237; FRL- 9718-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve in part, and conditionally approve
in part, the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by
the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation (TDEC), to demonstrate that the State meets the
requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
Act) for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). Section 110(a) of the CAA requires that each state adopt and
submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. TDEC certified that the Tennessee SIP contains
provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are implemented,
enforced, and maintained in Tennessee (hereafter referred to as
``infrastructure submission''). EPA is proposing to conditionally
approve sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of Tennessee's October 19, 2009,
submission because the current Tennessee SIP does not include
provisions to comply with the requirements of this sub-element. With
the exception of sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to
determine that Tennessee's infrastructure submission, provided to EPA
on October 19, 2009, addressed all the required infrastructure elements
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 21,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0237, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0237,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0237. 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 through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of ContentsI. Background

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on
8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour
standard to 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436. Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) requires
states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 2011.
    Midwest Environmental Defense and Sierra Club submitted a complaint
on November 20, 2011, related to EPA's failure to issue findings of
failure to submit related to the infrastructure requirements for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On December 13, 2011, and March 6, 2012,
Midwest Environmental Defense and Sierra Club submitted amended
complaints for failure to promulgate prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) regulations within two years and failure to approve
or disapprove SIP submittals, and to remove claims regarding states
that have submitted SIPs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, respectively.
Tennessee was among the states named in the November 2011 complaint,
and the December 2011 and March 2012 amended complaints. Specifically,
the plaintiffs claim that EPA has failed to perform its mandatory duty
by not approving in full, disapproving in full, or approving in part
and disapproving in part Tennessee's 2008 ozone infrastructure SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(A)-(H) and (J)-(M) by no later than April
19, 2011.
    Tennessee's infrastructure submission was received by EPA on
October 19, 2009, for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The submission was
determined to be complete on April 19, 2010. On July 3, 2012, Tennessee
submitted a letter to EPA withdrawing the portion of its October 19,
2009, SIP revision purported to address the requirements related to
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport. Today's action is
proposing to approve in part, and conditionally approve in part,
Tennessee's infrastructure submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(H) and (J)-(M), except for section
110(a)(2)(C) nonattainment area requirements and, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport. This action is not approving
any specific rule, but rather proposing that Tennessee's already
approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the

obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or
revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending
upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and
analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits
the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the
subject of this proposed rulemaking are listed below.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    \3\ Today's proposed rulemaking does not address element
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (Interstate Transport) for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Interstate transport requirements were formerly addressed by
Tennessee consistent with the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded
by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, without vacatur, back to EPA.
See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Prior to
this remand, EPA took final action to approve Tennessee's SIP
revision, which was submitted to comply with CAIR. See 72 FR 46388
(August 20, 2007). In so doing, Tennessee's CAIR SIP revision
addressed the interstate transport provisions in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response to the
remand of CAIR, EPA has promulgated a new rule to address interstate
transport. See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (``the Transport
Rule''). That rule was recently stayed by the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals. As a result of both the remand of CAIR and stay of the
Transport Rule, Tennessee has not yet made a submission to address
interstate transport. EPA's action on element 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS will be addressed in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS for various states across
the country. Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states
raised concerns about EPA's statements that it was not addressing
certain substantive issues in the context of acting on those
infrastructure SIP submissions.\5\ Those Commenters specifically raised
concerns involving provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's
statements in other proposals that it would address two issues
separately and not as part of actions on the infrastructure SIP
submissions: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during
periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) at sources, that
may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; and (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's
variance'' or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit
revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public process
or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to
the CAA (director's discretion). EPA notes that there are two other
substantive issues for which EPA likewise stated in other proposals
that it would address the issues separately: (i) Existing provisions
for minor source new source review (NSR) programs that may be
inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations
that pertain to such programs (minor source NSR); and (ii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform). In light of the comments, EPA believes that its statements in
various proposed actions on infrastructure SIPs with respect to these
four individual issues should be explained in greater depth. It is
important to emphasize that EPA is taking the same position with
respect to these four substantive issues in this action on the
infrastructure SIPs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS from Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated
May 31, 2011. Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the other proposals concerning these
four issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice
of the potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of
some states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not
want states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under
the misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a re-approval of
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy,
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or

implicit re-approval of any existing provisions that relate to these
four substantive issues. EPA is reiterating that position in this
action on the infrastructure SIP for Tennessee.
    Unfortunately, the Commenters and others evidently interpreted
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA
was merely postponing taking final action on the issues in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the
contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for
certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any
misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions.
EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not
require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive
issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with
separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it
was not taking a full final Agency action on the infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k)
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from
EPA's statements in those other proposals, however, we want to explain
more fully the Agency's reasons for concluding that these four
potential substantive issues in existing SIPs may be addressed
separately from actions on infrastructure SIP submissions.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPs are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, NSR permitting program
submissions required to address the requirements of part D, and a host
of other specific types of SIP submissions that address other specific
matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)
provides more details concerning the required contents of these
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions,
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and
substantive provisions.\6\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a substantive program to address
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event
of such an emergency.
    \7\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic
points as what constitutes significant contribution. 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; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162
(May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) provides that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\8\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with
different schedules.\9\ This illustrates that EPA may conclude that
subdividing the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) into
separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a given NAAQS
where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond a mere
submission addressing basic structural aspects of the state's
implementation plans. Finally, EPA notes that not every element of
section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the
same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the attendant
infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the
monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of section
110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what might be
necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an
infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might
be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to
an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \9\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See ``Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submissions 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,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to Regional Air Division
Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by
part D

likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section 110(a)(2)
such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear that
nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirements
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D
also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be
limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type
of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2)
and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for
infrastructure SIPs for these ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\ Within this guidance document,
EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what
the Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs,
which it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.'' \12\ As further identification of
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the
guidance document included a short description of the various elements
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief
description of the required elements.'' \13\ EPA also stated its belief
that, with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA
Regions.'' \14\ However, for the one exception to that general
assumption (i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS), EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each
state would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine
the scope of a state's submittal based on an assessment of how the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic
structure of the state's implementation plans for the NAAQS in
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance'').
    \12\ Id., at page 2.
    \13\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \14\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by the
Commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2009, EPA issued guidance to make recommendations
to states with respect to the infrastructure SIPs for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\15\ In the 2009 Guidance, EPA addressed a
number of additional issues that were not germane to the infrastructure
SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, but
were germane to these SIP submissions for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS (e.g., the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA had
bifurcated from the other infrastructure elements for those specific
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS). Significantly, neither the 2007
Guidance nor the 2009 Guidance explicitly referred to the SSM,
director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as among
specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance and the
2009 Guidance, however, EPA did not indicate to states that it intended
to interpret these provisions as requiring a substantive submission to
address these specific issues in existing SIP provisions in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007
Guidance merely indicated its belief that the states should make
submissions in which they established that they have the basic SIP
structure necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS. EPA
believes that states can establish that they have the basic SIP
structure, notwithstanding that there may be potential deficiencies
within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals for other states
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions. The same holds
true for this action on the infrastructure SIPs for Tennessee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See ``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),''
from William T, Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25,
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP
requirement is reasonable because it would not be feasible to read
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern,
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS.
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and
regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include
some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of the
SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for EPA to
determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of

the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\16\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\17\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the
appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP
problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a
later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require
a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion
provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a
subsequent action.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See ``Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 76 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \17\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010).
EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641
(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California,
Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004)
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \18\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(A). See 75 FR 42342, 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed
disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540
(January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Tennessee addressed the elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure'' provisions?

    The Tennessee infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures:
Tennessee's SIP contains several Air Pollution Control Regulations
relevant to air quality control regulations. The regulations described
below have been federally approved into the Tennessee SIP and include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures. Chapters
1200-3-1, General Provisions; 1200-3-3, Air Quality Standards; 1200-3-
4, Open Burning; 1200-3-18, Volatile Organic Compounds; and 1200-3-27,
Nitrogen Oxides, of the Tennessee SIP establish emission limits for
ozone and address the required control measures, means, and techniques
for compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that the provisions contained in these
chapters and Tennessee's practices are adequate to protect the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in the State.
    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the
Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to
take steps to correct it as soon as possible.
    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system:
Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Regulations, Chapter 1200-3-12,
Procedures for Ambient Sampling and Analysis, of the Tennessee SIP,
along with the Tennessee Network Description and Ambient Air Monitoring
Network Plan, provide for an ambient air quality monitoring system in
the State. Annually, EPA approves the ambient air monitoring network
plan for the state agencies. On July 1, 2011, Tennessee submitted its
plan to EPA. On October 24, 2011, EPA approved Tennessee's monitoring
network plan. Tennessee's approved monitoring network plan can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-
0237. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP
and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and
data system related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    3. 110(a)(2)(C) Program for enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources. In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the
modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved. Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and
Operating Permits, of Tennessee's SIP pertains to the construction of
any new major stationary source or any project at an existing major
stationary source in an area designated as nonattainment, attainment or
unclassifiable. There are three revisions to the Tennessee SIP that
that are necessary to meet the requirements of infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(C). These three revisions are related to the Ozone
Implementation NSR Update (November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612), the
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule'' (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514), and the NSR
PM2.5 Rule (May 16, 2008, 73 FR 28321).
    The first revision to the Tennessee SIP (Ozone Implementation NSR
Update revisions) was submitted by TDEC on May 28, 2009. This revision
modifies provisions of the State's SIP at Chapter 1200-3-9,
Construction and Operating Permits. In addition to meeting the
requirements of the Ozone Implementation NSR Update, these revisions
are also necessary to address portions of the infrastructure SIP
requirements described at element 110(a)(2)(C) and to include nitrogen
oxides (NOX) as a precursor to ozone. EPA approved this
revision on February 7, 2012. See 77 FR 6016.
    The second revision pertains to revisions to the PSD program

promulgated in the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule, submitted to
EPA on January 11, 2012. This revision establishes appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to Tennessee's PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions, and thereby addresses the
thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in Tennessee. EPA approved
this revision on February 28, 2012. See 77 FR 11744. In the January
2012 revision, Tennessee also amended its PSD regulations to add
automatic rescission provisions. EPA finalized approval of these
provisions on March 1, 2012.
    The third revision pertains to the adoption of PSD and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) requirements related to the
implementation of the NSR PM2.5 Rule. On July 29, 2011, TDEC
submitted revisions to its PSD/NSR regulations for EPA approval to
revise the Tennessee SIP in Chapter 1200-03-09-.01, Construction
Permits. The rule amendment adopts required federal PSD and NNSR
permitting provisions governing the implementation of the NSR program
for PM2.5 as promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule
that address the infrastructure requirements (C) and (J). See 73 FR
28321 (May 16, 2008). EPA finalized approval of Tennessee's July 29,
2011, submittal on July 30, 2012. See 77 FR 44481. These SIP revisions
\19\ address requisite requirements of infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(C), today's action to propose approval of infrastructure SIP
element 110(a)(2)(C). EPA also notes that today's action is not
proposing to approve or disapprove the State's existing minor NSR
program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's
regulations governing this program. EPA believes that a number of
states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing
EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with states to
reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory provisions for
the program. The statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide
for considerable flexibility in designing minor NSR programs, and EPA
believes it may be time to revisit the regulatory requirements for this
program to give the states an appropriate level of flexibility to
design a program that meets their particular air quality concerns,
while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting
the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ (1) EPA's approval of Tennessee's PSD/NSR regulations which
address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements, (2) EPA's
approval of Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions which
addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in
Tennessee, and (3) EPA's approval of Tennessee's NSR
PM2.5 Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and
practices are adequate for program enforcement of control measures
including review of proposed new sources related to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Interstate Transport. EPA is proposing to
approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
to include a program in the SIP that provides for meeting the
applicable PSD and visibility requirements of part C of the Act.
    PSD Requirements: In this action, EPA is proposing to approve
Tennessee's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with
respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
related to PSD to include a program in the SIP that regulates the
modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to
assure that the NAAQS are achieved. Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and
Operating Permits, of Tennessee's SIP pertains to the construction of
any new major stationary source or any project at an existing major
stationary source in an area designated as nonattainment, attainment or
unclassifiable. There are three revisions to the Tennessee SIP that
that are necessary to meet the requirements of infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(C). These three revisions are related to the Ozone
Implementation NSR Update, the ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'', and the NSR
PM2.5 Rule. For more detail on these rules, see item 3
above. These three rules demonstrate that Tennessee has a comprehensive
PSD program approved in the state, thus EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are adequate for
insuring compliance with the applicable PSD requirements relating to
interstate transport pollution for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Visibility Requirements: EPA recognizes that states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the
Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the
establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze
program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that
there is no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. This would be
the case even in the event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for
visibility is established, because this NAAQS would not affect
visibility requirements under part C. Tennessee has submitted SIP
revisions for approval to satisfy the requirements of the CAA Section
169A and 169B, and the regional haze and best available retrofit
technology rules contained in 40 CFR 51.308. On April 24, 2012, EPA
published a final rulemaking regarding Tennessee's regional haze
program. See 77 FR 24392. EPA has made the preliminary determination
that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's
ability to implement and provide for visibility protection relating to
interstate transport pollution for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS as
necessary.
    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate and International transport
provisions: Chapter 1200-9-.01(5) Growth Policy, of the Tennessee SIP
outlines how the State will notify neighboring states of potential
impacts from new or modified sources. Tennessee does not have any
pending obligation under sections 115 and 126 of the CAA. Additionally,
Tennessee has federally approved regulations in its SIP that satisfy
the requirements for the NOX SIP Call. See 70 FR 76408
(December 27, 2005). EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee's SIP and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with
the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international
pollution abatement for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate resources: EPA is proposing two separate
actions with respect to the sub-elements required pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(E). Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation
plan provide (i) necessary assurances that the State will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its
implementation plan, (ii) that the State comply with the requirements
respecting State Boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or
regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation
of any plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring
adequate implementation of such plan provisions. As with the remainder
of the infrastructure elements addressed by this notice, EPA is
proposing to approve Tennessee's SIP as meeting the requirements of
sub-elements 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). With respect to

sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (regarding state boards), EPA is proposing
to approve in part, and conditionally approve in part, this sub-
element. EPA's rationale for today's proposals respecting each sub-
element is described in turn below.
    In support of EPA's proposal to approve sub-elements
110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), EPA notes that TDEC, through the Tennessee
Air Pollution Control Board, is responsible for promulgating rules and
regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards general policies, a
system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other
planning needs. As evidence of the adequacy of TDEC's resources with
respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to
Tennessee on April 24, 2012, outlining 105 grant commitments and
current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2011. The letter
EPA submitted to Tennessee can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0237. Annually, states update these
grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality
planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. There were
no outstanding issues for fiscal year 2011, therefore, Tennessee's
grants were finalized and closed out. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Tennessee has adequate resources for implementation
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    With respect to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to
approve in part, and to conditionally approve in part, Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP as to this requirement. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
provides that infrastructure SIPs must require compliance with section
128 of CAA requirements respecting State boards. Section 128, in turn,
provides at subsection (a)(1) that each SIP shall require that any
board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders shall be
subject to the described public interest and income restrictions
therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) provides that each SIP shall require any
board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to
approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be
subject to conflict of interest disclosure requirements. In this
action, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to the
applicable section 128(a)(1) requirements, and to approve Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to the
applicable section 128(a)(2) requirements.
    Today's proposed conditional approval of this sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding section 128(a)(1) requirements is based upon
a commitment made by Tennessee to adopt specific enforceable measures
into its SIP within one year to address the applicable portions of
section 128(a)(1). Tennessee's commitment letter to EPA, dated March
28, 2012, can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using docket ID No.
EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0353. Based upon that commitment, on July 23, 2012,
EPA took final action to conditionally approve infrastructure sub-
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding section 128(a)(1) for purposes of
the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 42997. In accordance with
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the commitment from Tennessee provided
that the State will adopt the specified enforceable provisions and
submit a revision to EPA for approval within one year from EPA's final
conditional approval action. In its March 28, 2012, letter, TDEC
committed to adopt the above-specified enforceable provisions and
submit them to EPA for incorporation into the SIP by no later than July
23, 2012.\20\ Failure by the State to adopt these provisions and submit
them to EPA for incorporation into the SIP by July 23, 2013, would
result in today's conditional approval being treated as a disapproval.
Should that occur, EPA would provide the public with notice of such a
disapproval in the Federal Register.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ July 23, 2012, is one year from the approval date of EPA's
final rulemaking to conditionally approve sub-section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) regarding section 128(a)(1) for purposes of the
1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.
    \21\ EPA notes that pursuant to section 110(k)(4), a conditional
approval is treated as a disapproval in the event that a state fails
to comply with its commitment. Notification of this disapproval
action in the Federal Register is not subject to public notice and
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) obligations to incorporate provisions
into the Tennessee SIP to meet the requirements of section 128(a)(1)
have not changed for purposes of the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, EPA is
today proposing to rely upon Tennessee's earlier commitment to adopt
specific enforceable measures into its SIP within one year as the basis
for a condition of this sub-element as it relates to the section
128(a)(1) requirements. With respect to the remaining sub-elements of
110(a)(2)(E), EPA is proposing to approve these portions of Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP. As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination
that Tennessee has adequate resources for implementation of the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
    7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: Tennessee's
infrastructure submission describes how to establish requirements for
compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis, and for
emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of data in the
State. TDEC uses these data to track progress towards maintaining the
NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, identify sources and
general emission levels, and determine compliance with emission
regulations and additional EPA requirements. These requirements are
provided in Chapter 1200-3-10, Required Sampling, Recording and
Reporting, of the Tennessee SIP.
    Additionally, Tennessee is required to submit emissions data to EPA
for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System
(EIS). States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and
their associated precursors--NOX, sulfur dioxide, ammonia,
lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Many states also voluntarily report emissions of
hazardous air pollutants. Tennessee made its latest update to the NEI
on December 31, 2011. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it
where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web
site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are
adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency power: Chapter 1200-3-15, Emergency
Episode Requirements, of the Tennessee SIP identifies air pollution
emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies. These criteria
have previously been approved by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices are

adequate for emergency powers related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    9. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: As previously discussed, TDEC
is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as
needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. Tennessee has the ability and
authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a
number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS.
    Tennessee has two areas, Knoxville, TN and Memphis, TN-MS-AR, that
are designated as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These
two areas are classified as marginal nonattainment areas and therefore
no attainment demonstration SIPs are required. Section 182(a) of the
CAA does require that, for marginal areas, states must submit Base Year
Emissions Inventory SIPs, Periodic Emission Inventory SIPs, Emission
Statement SIPs and possible SIP updates to their NSR program. While the
CAA requires these types of SIPs for marginal areas, the specific
requirements and compliance dates for these SIPs, as they relate to the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, are not yet established but are expected to be
addressed in the upcoming Implementation Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
SIP Requirements. Tennessee has provided SIP revisions for both the 1-
hour ozone and 8-hour ozone standards. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate
a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    10. 110(a)(2)(J). EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the
general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the
SIP that provides for meeting the applicable consultation requirements
of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127,
and the PSD and visibility protection requirements of part C of the
Act.
    110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: Chapter 1200-3-9 Construction and Operating Permits, as well
as the Regional Haze Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation
between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control
agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide
for consultation with government officials whose jurisdictions might be
affected by SIP development activities. Tennessee adopted state-wide
consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation
conformity. These consultation procedures include considerations
associated with the development of mobile inventories for SIPs.
Implementation of transportation conformity, as outlined in the
consultation procedures, requires TDEC to consult with federal, state
and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the
development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA approved
Tennessee's consultation procedures on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26492). EPA
has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and
practices adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: TDEC
has public notice mechanisms in place to notify the public of ozone and
other pollutant forecasting, including an air quality monitoring Web
site with ground level ozone alerts, http://tn.gov/environment/apc/ozone/. Chapter 1200-3-15, Emergency Episode Requirements, requires
that TDEC notify the public of any air pollution episode or NAAQS
violation. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's
SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide
public notification related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when
necessary.
    110(a)(2)(J) (Part C) PSD and visibility protection: Tennessee
demonstrates its authority to regulate new and modified sources of
ozone precursors, VOCs, and NOX to assist in the protection
of air quality in Chapter 1200-3-9, Construction and Operating Permits.
As with infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(C), infrastructure element
110(a)(2)(J) also requires compliance with applicable provisions of the
PSD program described in part C of the Act. Accordingly, this portion
of element (J) also requires compliance with the Ozone Implementation
NSR Update, the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'', and the NSR PM2.5 Rule.
These SIP revisions \22\ have been approved into the Tennessee SIP and
address requisite requirements of infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(J)
(PSD and visibility protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ (1) EPA's approval of Tennessee's PSD/NSR regulations which
address the Ozone Implementation NSR Update requirements, (2) EPA's
approval of Tennessee's PSD GHG Tailoring Rule revisions which
addresses the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability in
Tennessee and (3) EPA's approval of Tennessee's NSR PM2.5
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which
includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of
a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program
requirements under part C do not change. Thus, EPA finds that there is
no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under section 110(a)(2)(J)
when a new NAAQS becomes effective. This would be the case even in the
event a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established,
because this NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part
C. Tennessee has submitted SIP revisions for approval to satisfy the
requirements of the CAA Section 169A and 169B, and the regional haze
and best available retrofit technology rules contained in 40 CFR
51.308. On April 24, 2012, EPA published a final rulemaking regarding
Tennessee's regional haze program. See 77 FR 24392.EPA has made the
preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate the State's ability to implement PSD programs and to
provide for visibility protection related to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS when necessary.
    11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: Chapter 1200-3-
9-.01(4)(k), Air Quality Models, of the Tennessee SIP specifies that
required air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 51,
Appendix W ``Guideline on Air Quality Models,'' as incorporated into
the Tennessee SIP. This demonstrates that Tennessee has the authority
to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on
ambient air quality of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, Tennessee
supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions
inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, for the southeastern states. Taken as a
whole, Tennessee's air quality regulations and practices demonstrate
that TDEC has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of
predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that Tennessee's SIP and
practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air
quality and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data,
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: As discussed above, Tennessee's
SIP provides for the review of construction permits. Permitting fees in
Tennessee are collected through the State's federally-approved title V
fees program

and consistent with Chapter 1200-03-26-.02, Permit-Related Fees, of the
Tennessee Code. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary.
    13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: Chapter 1200-3-9-.01(4)(k), Public Participation, of the
Tennessee SIP requires that TDEC notify the public of an application,
preliminary determination, the activity or activities involved in the
permit action, any emissions change associated with any permit
modification, and the opportunity for comment prior to making a final
permitting decision. By way of example, TDEC has recently worked
closely with local political subdivisions during the development of its
Transportation Conformity SIP, Regional Haze Implementation Plan, and
Early Action Compacts. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
Tennessee's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with
affected local entities related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when
necessary.

V. Proposed Action

    As described above, with the exception of sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to determine that Tennessee's
infrastructure submission, provided to EPA on October 19, 2009,
addressed the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve in part and conditionally
approve in part, Tennessee's SIP submission consistent with section
110(k)(3) of the CAA.
    As described above, with the exception of sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (as it relates to section 128(a)(1)), TDEC has
addressed the elements of the CAA 110(a)(1) and (2) SIP requirements
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA to ensure that the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS are implemented, enforced, and maintained in Tennessee. With
respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) (referencing section 128 of the CAA), EPA
is proposing to conditionally approve Tennessee's infrastructure SIP
based on a March 28, 2012, commitment that TDEC will adopt specific
enforceable measures into its SIP and submit these revisions to EPA
July 23, 2013, to address the applicable portions of section 128. EPA
is also proposing to approve Tennessee's infrastructure submission for
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii), because its October 19, 2009, submission is
consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 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
proposed 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 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: August 8, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-20668 Filed 8-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 184)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57846]
[DOCID:fr23se10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0632; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-025-AD;
Amendment 39-16426; AD 2010-18-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Robert E. Rust, Jr. Model DeHavilland
DH.C1 Chipmunk 21, DH.C1 Chipmunk 22, and DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to the products
listed above. The AD number in the 14 CFR Part 39 section and the Sec.
39.13 [Amended] section is incorrect. This document corrects that
error. In all other respects, the original document remains the same.

DATES: This AD remains effective October 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carey O'Kelley, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (404) 474-
5606; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airworthiness Directive 2010-18-12,
amendment 39-16426 (75 FR 53861, September 2, 2010), currently requires
you to do a one-time inspection of the flap operating system for an
unapproved latch plate design installation, with replacement as
necessary for Robert E. Rust, Jr. Model DeHavilland DH.C1 Chipmunk 21,
DH.C1 Chipmunk 22, and DH.C1 Chipmunk 22A airplanes.
    As published, the AD number in the 14 CFR Part 39 section and Sec.
39.13 [Amended] section is incorrect.
    No other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been
changed; therefore, only the changed portion of the final rule is being
published in the Federal Register.
    The effective date of this AD remains October 7, 2010.

Correction of Non-Regulatory Text

    In the Federal Register of September 2, 2010, AD 2010-18-12;
Amendment 39-16426 is corrected as follows:
    On page 53861, in the 3rd column, on line 6 under 14 CFR Part 39,
change ``AD 2010-18-01'' to ``AD 2010-18-12.''
    On page 53863, in the 1st column, on line 4 under Sec.  39.13
[Amended], change ``AD 2010-18-01'' to ``AD 2010-18-12.''

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 16, 2010.
William J. Timberlake,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-23745 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 8910]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: FAA-2021-1136; Summary Notice No.--2022-08]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received;
International Aviation Services, LLC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the
summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its
final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before March 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2021-1136
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nia Daniels,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

Timothy R. Adams,
Deputy Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2021-1136.
    Petitioner: International Aviation Services, LLC.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  61.156(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: International Aviation Services,
LLC is seeking relief from Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
Sec.  61.156(a) from the interpretation of the word classroom, which
implies in-person instruction for the completion of academic
training.

[FR Doc. 2022-03359 Filed 2-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21626]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08783]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0248]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock
Island, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Rock Island Railroad and Highway
Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock
Island, Illinois. The deviation is necessary to allow the participants
of the Quad City Marathon to cross the bridge. This deviation allows
the bridge to be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position for
four hours.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.,
September 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0248] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge
Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested
a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway
Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock
Island, Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a
four hour period from 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., September 28, 2014,
while the Quad City Marathon is held between the cities of Davenport,
IA and Rock Island, IL.
    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates
in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement
that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of
vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart.
    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section
of the Upper Mississippi River.
    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, in the closed-to-
navigation position, provides a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above
normal pool. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of
commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation
has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 4, 2014.
Eric A. Washburn,
Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
[FR Doc. 2014-08783 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60269-60270]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23883]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2428-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Municipal General Rate Case to be effective 11/23/
2013.
    Filed Date: 9/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130923-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2429-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Position Y2-018; Original Service Agreement No.
3644 to be effective 8/22/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/23/13.
    Accession Number: 20130923-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2430-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 1374R13 Kansas Power Pool and Westar Meter Agent
Agreement to be effective 9/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130924-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2431-000.
    Applicants: FC Landfill Energy, LLC.
    Description: MBR tariff cancellation to be effective 9/25/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130924-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2432-000.
    Applicants: BC Landfill Energy, LLC.
    Description: MBR tariff cancellation to be effective 9/25/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130924-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2433-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of the Occidental Meter Agent
Services Agreement of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 9/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130924-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2434-000.

    Applicants: SC Landfill Energy, LLC.
    Description: MBR tariff cancellation to be effective 9/25/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130924-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2435-000.
    Applicants: WC Landfill Energy, LLC.
    Description: MBR tariff cancellation to be effective 9/25/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130924-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2436-000.
    Applicants: Platinum Energy, LLC.
    Description: Platinum Energy, LLC Market Based Rate Tariff to be
effective 10/15/2013.
    Filed Date: 9/24/13.
    Accession Number: 20130924-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/15/13.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR13-12-000.
    Applicants: Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
    Description: Documents concerning the formation of a company (Peak
Reliability) of Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
    Filed Date: 9/20/13.
    Accession Number: 20130920-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/13.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 24, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23883 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 70991-70992]
[DOCID:fr24no08-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

September 12, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC08-123-000.
    Applicants: J-POWER USA Generation, L.P.; DJ Power LLC; Freeport
Power, LLC; Harbinger Independent Power Fund II, L.L; Harbinger
Pinelawn LLC; NM Regal, LLC.
    Description: J-POWER USA Generation LP et al. submits a joint
application for authorization of Transactions and request for waivers
and expedited consideration etc Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal
Power Act.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080911-0110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 30, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG08-97-000.
    Applicants: Walnut Creek Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 09/11/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080911-5048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 2, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER97-837-007; ER99-3151-008; ER03-327-002; ER08-
448-000; ER08-447-000;
    Applicants: PSEG Inc; PSEG Nuclear LLC; PSEG Power Connecticut LLC;
PSEG Fossil LLC.
    Description: Public Service Electric and Gas Company's et al.
response to FERC's data request & submission of Updates Market Power
Analysis.
    Filed Date: 09/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080911-0079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-758-012.
    Applicants: Inland Empire Energy Center, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status.
    Filed Date: 09/03/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080903-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 24, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-874-001; ER94-1061-029.
    Applicants: Rainbow Energy Ventures LLC; Rainbow Energy Marketing
Corporation.
    Description: Rainbow Energy Ventures, LLC et al. requests for
clarification as a Category 1 Seller Determination pursuant to Order
697 & 697-A.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2008
    Accession Number: 20080911-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 30, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1335-001.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Companies submits Substitute Third Revised
Service Agreement 391, in its entirety and Substitute Fourth Revised
Service Agreement 391 etc.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080912-0117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 1, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1503-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC submits a Notice of
Succession.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080909-0099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 29, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1504-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection submits an executed
Interconnection Service Agreement etc.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080909-0098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 29, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1505-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submit its Adjacent Balancing Authority Coordination Agreement.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080909-0097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 29, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1506-000.
    Applicants: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Old Dominion Electric Cooperative submits a Notice of
Cancellation of the Amended and Restated Wholesale Power Contract.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080909-0096.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 29, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1508-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits
proposed revisions to their 9/8/08 filing re allocation and auction of
Congestion Revenue Rights for calendar year 2009.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080910-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 30, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1509-000.
    Applicants: Burgess Capital LLC.
    Description: Burgess Capital, LLC submits petition for acceptance
of initial tariff (FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1), waivers
and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080911-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 30, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1510-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: AEP Operating Companies submits a fourth revision to
the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1427 with the
City of St Clairsville.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080911-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 30, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1511-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Kentucky Utilities Company informs that on 3/31/08
they submitted for filing an executed copy of Amendment 1 to Contract
for Electric Service between Bardstown Municipal Electric Light & Power
and KU.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080911-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 30, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1512-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc submits the Installed Capacity.
Requirement, Hydro Quebec Interconnection Capability Credits and
related values for the 2011/2012 Capability Year under ER08-1512.
    Filed Date: 09/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080912-0116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 30, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1515-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Meter
Agent Services Agreement between Noble Great plains Windpark, LLC as
the Market Participant and Southwestern Public Service Company as the
Meter Agent under ER08-1515.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080912-0114.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 1, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1516-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Joint
Operating Agreement with Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc,
effective 8/12/08 under ER08-1516.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080912-0113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 1, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1517-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits an
executed Large Generator Interconnection Agreement between PNM and High
Lonesome Mesa, LLC dated 8/11/08 and designated as Service Agreement
etc under ER08-1517.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080912-0112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 1, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1518-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Dominion Virginia Power submits a Notice of
Cancellation and revised service agreement cover sheet to cancel a
Generator Interconnection and Operating Agreement between Dominion and
Southeastern Public Service etc under ER08-1518.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080912-0111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 1, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1520-000.
    Applicants: E. ON U.S. LLC.
    Description: E.ON U.S LLC et al. submits proposed revisions to
LG&E/KU joint Open Access Transmission Tariff under ER08-1520.
    Filed Date: 09/10/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080912-0110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 1, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES08-62-000; ES08-63-000; ES08-64-000.
    Applicants: PSEG Fossil LLC; PSEG Nuclear LLC; PSEG Energy
Resources & Trade LLC.
    Description: Application of PSEG Fossil LLC, PSEG Nuclear LLC and
PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC for Renewal and Expansion of
Authorization to Issue Securities in Connection with Credit Facilities.
    Filed Date: 09/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080912-5002.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, October 3, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA08-153-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submits First
Revised Sheet 2 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 6
to their Open Access Transmission Tariff under OA08-153.
    Filed Date: 09/05/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080910-0074.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-153-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Public Service Company of New Mexico submit amendments
to its Second Revised Volume 6 Open Access Transmission Tariff to
reflect the changes required by the Commission's Order 890-B.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080910-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 29, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-154-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Co submits compliance filing
with revisions to its Fourteenth Revised Volume 2 Open Access
Transmission Tariff etc pursuant to Order 890-B.
    Filed Date: 09/08/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080911-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, September 29, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-155-000.
    Applicants: Tieton Hydropower, LLC.
    Description: Tieton Hydropower, LLC's Petition to Waive Open Access
Tariff Filing Requirement.
    Filed Date: 09/11/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080911-5095.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 2, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27808 Filed 11-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P