[Federal Register: May 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 88)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 26046]
[DOCID:fr08my07-31]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0677b; FRL-8303-3]

Revisions to the Nevada State Implementation Plan, Washoe County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Washoe County
portion of the Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions
concern particulate matter (PM) emissions from fugitive dust sources,
such as open areas, unpaved roads, and construction activities. We are
proposing to approve local rules to regulate these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by June 7, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2006-0677b, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an

``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at
either<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses Washoe County
Regulation 040.030-Dust Control. In the Rules and Regulations section
of this Federal Register, we are approving this local rule in a direct
final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP
revisions are not controversial. However, if we receive adverse
comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed
rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: March 29, 2007.
Enrique Manzanilla,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E7-8694 Filed 5-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


P-16-0632 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-15-0632 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-15-0632 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-15-0632 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-15-0632 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-15-0632 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-15-0632 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-15-0632 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40763-40764]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17655]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1494-438]

Grand River Dam Authority; Notice of Modification of Procedural
Schedule

    Take notice that the schedule for processing the following
hydroelectric application has been modified.
    a. Type of Application: Notice of Intent to File License
Application for a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 1494-438.
    c. Date Filed: February 1, 2017.
    d. Applicant: Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA).
    e. Name of Project: Pensacola Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Grand (Neosho) River in
Craig, Delaware, Mayes, and Ottawa Counties, Oklahoma. The project
occupies federal land.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In a filing of April 11, 2018, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
provided documentation that lands held in trust by the BIA for the
benefit of one or more federally-recognized Indian tribes occur
within the existing Pensacola Project boundary. The total acreage of
federal lands within the project boundary is unknown at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Dr. Darrell Townsend, Assistant General
Manager, GRDA, 420 Highway 28, Langley, OK 74359-0070;<PHONE_NUMBER>
or [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Rachel McNamara at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].
    j. Procedural Schedule: The Commission's August 10, 2018, letter
established August 21, 2018, as the new date for the additional Tribal
Consultation meeting. The revised deadline for filing the Revised
Proposed Study Plan is now September 24, 2018, and the revised deadline
for filing comments on the Revised Proposed Study Plan is now October
24, 2018. As such, the application will be processed according to the
following revised schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate. If a date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date will
be the following business day.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
File Revised Proposed Study Plan.  September 24, 2018.
File Comments on Revised Proposed  October 24, 2018.
 Study Plan.

Commission Issues Study Plan       November 8, 2018.
 Determination.
Notice of Formal Study Dispute     November 28, 2018.
 (if necessary).
Commission Issues Study Dispute    February 6, 2019.
 Determination (if necessary).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: August 10, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-17655 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 41583]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14939]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9051-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed June 26, 2020, 10 a.m. EST Through July 6, 2020, 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20200135, Draft, CHSRA, CA, California High-Speed Rail: San
Francisco to San Jose Project Section: Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 08/24/2020,
Contact: Dan McKell<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200136, Final, NIH, MD, NIH Bethesda Surgery, Radiology, And
Lab Medicine Building, Review Period Ends: 08/10/2020, Contact: Valerie
Nottingham<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200138, Fourth Draft Supplemental, FHWA, VT, Champlain
Parkway or Southern Connector Limited Scope Burlington, Vermont,
Comment Period Ends: 08/24/2020, Contact: Patrick Kirby<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200139, Draft, FHWA, MD, I-495 & I-270 Managed Lanes Study
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation,
Comment Period Ends: 10/08/2020, Contact: Jeanette Mar<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 7, 2020.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-14939 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


General Guidance on Recodifications of Relevant NDCC and NDAC Sections for the Transfer of CAA Authorities from the NDDoH to  the NDDEQ
                             Previous Codification
                  Re-Codification for Transfer of Authorities
                       North Dakota Century Code (NDCC)
Title-Chapter-Section
Title-Chapter-Section
"Air Pollution Control" 23-25 [sections 01  -  11]*
"Air Pollution Control" 23.1-06 [sections 01  -  15]
"Permit or investigatory hearings" 23-01-23
"Permit or investigatory hearings" 23.1-01-07
                    North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC)
Title-Article-Chapter-Section
Title-Article-Chapter-Section
"Air Pollution Control" 33-15-XX-xx[₸]
"Air Pollution Control" 33.1-15-XX-xx

* Note  -  discrepancy in section count due to two factors: (1) chapter 23-25 [contingent repeal] includes several section sub-parts (e.g. 23-25-01.1, 23-25-03.3, etc.) bringing the count of "sections" to 17; (2) with recodification under chapter 23.1-06, the State has eliminated "reserved" (i.e. repealed) sections (§§ 23-25-07 and 23-25-09), reducing the total count of "sections" by two (2). With these in mind, both chapter 23.1-06 and 23-25 have 15 substantively equivalent sections.
[₸] Note  -  in almost all cases of recodification of the relevant NDAC provisions, chapters and sections have been recodified in a straightforward manner, moving all chapters and sections from Article 33-15 to Article 33.1-15 without a change to chapter or section designation, nor to the substance of the sections recodified.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64406-64407]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-49-000.
    Applicants: Centra Pipelines Minnesota Inc.

    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Updated Shipper Index Dec 2015
to be effective 12/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20151014-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-50-000.
    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: October 15-31 2015 Auction to
be effective 10/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20151014-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-51-000.
    Applicants: Cadeville Gas Storage LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cadeville Gas Storage--August
2015 Tariff Modifications to be effective 8/6/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/14/15.
    Accession Number: 20151014-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-52-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt
(Encana 37663 Rate Case Amendment-fuel) to be effective 10/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 10/15/15.
    Accession Number: 20151015-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/15.

    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 Sec.  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: October 15, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26961 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0320; FRL-       ]

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

	District of Columbia; Transportation Conformity Regulations

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
District of Columbia State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The revisions
establish general and transportation conformity regulations for the
District of Columbia.  EPA is approving these revisions in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES:  This rule is effective on [Insert date 60 days after publication
in the Federal Register]  without further notice, unless EPA receives
adverse written comment by [Insert date 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register].  If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0320 by one of the following methods:

     A.      HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov
, Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

     B.    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     C.    Mail:   EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0320, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Planning Programs, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

     D.   Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III
address.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0320.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.  Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website 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
e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.  Copies of the State submittal
are available at the District of Columbia District Department of the
Environment, Air Quality Division, 51 N Street NE, Fifth Floor,
Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Kotsch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever “we,”
“us,” or

“our'' is used, we mean EPA.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.   What Is Transportation Conformity?

Transportation conformity is required under Section 176(c) of the Clean
Air Act to ensure that Federally supported highway, transit projects,
and other activities are consistent with (conform to) the purpose of the
SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated
nonattainment, and those redesignated to attainment after 1990
(maintenance areas), with plans developed under section 175A of the
Clean Air Act for the following transportation related criteria
pollutants: ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), carbon monoxide
(CO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2).  Conformity to the purpose of the SIP
means that transportation activities will not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the relevant national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).  The
transportation conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR part 93 and
provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR 51.390.

II.   What Is the Background for This Action?

On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was signed
into law.  SAFETEA-LU revised certain provisions of section 176(c) of
the Clean Air Act, related to transportation conformity.  Prior to
SAFETEA-LU, states were required to address all of the Federal
conformity rule's provisions in their conformity SIPs.  After
SAFETEA-LU, state’s SIPs were required to contain all or portions of
only the following three sections of the Federal rule, modified as
appropriate to each state's circumstances: 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation
procedures); 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) (written commitments to implement
certain kind of control measures); and 40 CFR 93.125(c) (written
commitments to implement certain kinds of mitigation measures).  States
are no longer required to submit conformity SIP revisions that address
the other sections of the Federal conformity rule.

III.   What Did the State Submit and How Did We Evaluate It?

On January 26, 2010, the District of Columbia Department of the
Environment submitted a revision to its SIP for general and
transportation conformity regulations adopted on January 8, 2010.  The
portion of the SIP dealing with general conformity is strictly a
recodification of its previously approved general conformity regulation
from Chapter 4 of the District of Columbia Regulations (DCMR) to Chapter
15 and contains no substantial changes from its previous approval.  The
SIP revision section for transportation conformity addresses the three
provisions of the EPA Conformity Rule required under SAFETEA-LU:  40 CFR
93.105 (consultation procedures); 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) (control
measures), and 40 CFR 93.125(c) (mitigation measures).

We reviewed the submittals to assure consistency with the February 14,
2006 “Interim Guidance for Implementing the Transportation Conformity
provisions in the SAFETEA-LU.” The guidance document can be found at
HYPERLINK " http://epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm"
http://epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm .  The guidance
document states that each state is only required to address and tailor
the afore-mentioned three sections of the Federal Conformity Rule to be
included in their state conformity SIPs.

EPA's review of the District of Columbia’s proposed SIP revision
indicates that it is consistent with EPA’s guidance in that it
includes the three elements specified by SAFETEA-LU.  Consistent with
the EPA Conformity Rule at 40 CFR 93.105 (consultation procedures),
Title 20, DCRM Chapter 15, Sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 identifies the
appropriate agencies, procedures and allocation of responsibilities.  In
addition, Title 20, DCMR Chapter 15, Section 1506 provides for
appropriate, public consultation/public involvement consistent with 40
CFR 93.105.  With respect to the requirements of 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii)
and 40 CFR 93.125(c), the Title 20, DCRM Chapter 15, Section 1509 of the
regulation specifies that written commitments for control measures and
mitigation measures for meeting these requirements will be provided as
needed.

IV.   Final Action

EPA is approving the District of Columbia SIP revisions for general and
transportation conformity, without prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comment.  However, in the Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal
Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments are filed.
This rule will be effective on [Insert date 60 days from date of
publication in the Federal Register] without further notice unless EPA
receives adverse comment by [Insert date 30 days from date of
publication in the Federal Register].  If EPA receives adverse comment,
EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.  EPA will address all
public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.  Any
parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.  Please note
that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or
section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the
remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the
rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

V.   Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.   General Requirements

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.  For that reason, this action:

is not a "significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

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

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this 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.

B.   Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States.  EPA will submit a report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.  A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
 This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

C.  Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by [insert date 60 days from date of publication of
this document in the Federal Register].  Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this final rule for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.  This action to approve the District of Columbia transportation
conformity regulations may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements.  (See, section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

__May 17, 2010 _____
________\\s\\_____________

Dated:                                				William C. Early,

                                      				Acting Regional Administrator,

  Region III.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52 - [AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart  J District of Columbia

2. In §52.470, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing the
existing entry for Chapter 4, Section 403 and adding a new entry for
Chapter 15.  The amendments read as follows:

§ 52.470  		Identification of plan.

*		*		*		*		*

(c)* * *

EPA-APPROVED DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGULATIONS

State citation	Title/subject	State effective date	EPA approval date
Additional explanation

          *            *               *              *              *
              *             *

Chapter 15

General and Transportation Conformity

Section 1500	General Conformity-Purpose	1/8/10	[Insert Federal Register
publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

Section 1501	General Conformity- Requirements	1/8/10	[Insert Federal
Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

Section 1502	Transportation Conformity-Purpose	1/8/10	[Insert Federal
Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

Section 1503	Transportation Conformity-Consultation Process	1/8/10
[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

Section 1504	Transportation Conformity-Interagency Consultation
Requirements	1/8/10	[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

Section 1505	Transportation Conformity-Conflict Resolution Associated
With Conformity Determinations	1/8/10	[Insert Federal Register
publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

Section 1506	Transportation Conformity-Public Consultation Procedures
1/8/10	[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

Section 1507	Transportation Conformity-Interagency Consultation
Procedures	1/8/10	[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

Section 1508	Transportation Conformity-Procedures for Determining
Regional Transportation-Related  Emissions	1/8/10	[Insert Federal
Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

Section 1509	Transportation Conformity-Enforceability of Design Concept
and Scope and Project-Level Mitigation and Control Measures	1/8/10
[Insert Federal Register publication date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

Section 1599	Definitions	1/8/10	[Insert Federal Register publication
date]

[Insert page number where the document begins]	New Regulation

*    *    *    *    *    *   *

*		*		*		*		*

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  9


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 190 (Friday, September 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67340-67341]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23677]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4093-035]

McMahan Hydroelectric, L.L.C.; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Original license.
    b. Project No.: P-4093-035.
    c. Date filed: March 30, 2015.
    d. Applicant: McMahan Hydroelectric, L.L.C.
    e. Name of Project: Bynum Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Haw River, near the Town of Pittsboro and the
Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in Chatham County, North Carolina.
The project does not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Andrew J. McMahan, President, McMahan
Hydroelectric, L.L.C., 105 Durham Eubanks Road, Pittsboro, NC 273121;
(336) 509-2148<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Sean Murphy at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Dustin Wilson at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests:
60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-4093-035.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing, but is not ready
for environmental analysis at this time. When the application is ready
for environmental analysis, the Commission will issue a public notice
requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or
prescriptions.
    l. The existing Bynum Project includes: (1) A 20-acre reservoir
(referred to as Odell Lake) at elevation 315.0 feet mean sea level,
with 100 acre-feet of gross storage and no net storage; (2) a 900-foot-
long, 10-foot-high stone masonry dam (Bynum Dam, or Odell Lake Dam),
consisting of a 750-foot-long uncontrolled spillway section and a 150-
foot-long non-overflow section that contains canal intake facilities;
(3) two hydraulically controlled 6-foot-wide Tainter gates that allow
water to flow into an intake canal; (4) a 2,000-foot-long power canal
varying in width from 25 to 40 feet that (a) extends from Bynum Dam to
the powerhouse, and (b) includes a drainage gate located immediately
upstream of the powerhouse; (5) a powerhouse with (a) an intake
protected by a trashrack having a bar spacing of 2.75 inches, and (b) a
single turbine/generator unit; (6) a 500-foot-long tailrace varying in
width from 40 to 50 feet; (7) a 2,500-foot-long bypassed reach; (8) an
interconnection with the transmission system at a nearby substation;
and (9) appurtenant facilities.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development
application was issued for competing applications or notices of intent.
Under the Commission's regulations, any competing development
application must be filed in response to and in compliance with public
notice of the initial development application. No competing
applications or notices of intent may be filed in response to this
notice.
    o. Comments, Motions to Intervene, or Protests: Anyone may submit
comments, a motion to intervene, or a protest in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take,
the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified deadline date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' or ``PROTEST,'' as applicable;
(2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project
number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the
name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the
filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, and
protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with
18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: September 23, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23677 Filed 9-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31245-31252]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13278]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0504-201052; FRL- 9312-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Extension of
Attainment Date for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-
South Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve requests from the State
of North Carolina, through the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (NC DENR), and the State of South Carolina,
through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SC DHEC), to grant a one-year extension of the attainment date
for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) for the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South
Carolina Area (hereafter referred to as the ``bi-state Charlotte Area''
or ``Metrolina Area''). These requests were sent to EPA via letter from
NC DENR on April 28, 2010, and from SC DHEC on May 6, 2010. The bi-
state Charlotte Area consists of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln,
Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of Iredell County (Davidson and
Coddle Creek Townships), North Carolina; and a portion of York County,
South Carolina. EPA is finalizing a determination that North Carolina
and South Carolina have met the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements
to obtain a one-year extension to their attainment date for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state Charlotte Area. As a result, EPA is
approving a one-year extension of the 1997 8-hour ozone moderate
attainment date for the bi-state Charlotte Area. Specifically, EPA
(through this final action) is extending the bi-state Charlotte Area's
attainment date from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011. EPA is also
addressing adverse comments received on EPA's proposal to grant the
one-year extension for the bi-state Charlotte 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective June 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0504. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://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: For information regarding the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, contact Ms. Jane Spann, 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 for Ms.
Spann is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Spann can also be reached via electronic
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding the North
Carolina or South Carolina SIPs, contact Mr. Zuri Farngalo, Regulatory
Development Section, at the same address above. The telephone number
for Mr. Farngalo is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Farngalo can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. This Action
III. Comments and Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Detailed background information and rationale for this final action
can be found in EPA's proposed rule entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Extension of Attainment Date for
the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Moderate Nonattainment Area,'' 75 FR 46881 (August 4, 2010).
The comment period for EPA's proposed action closed on September 3,
2010. EPA received three sets of comments on the August 4, 2010,
proposed rulemaking which are discussed later in this rulemaking. This
section includes a brief summary of the information and rationale for
EPA's proposed approval of the bi-state Charlotte Area's one-year
extension.
    Section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the Administrator, within six months
of the attainment date, to determine whether an ozone nonattainment
area attained the NAAQS. CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) states that, for
areas classified as marginal, moderate, or serious, if the
Administrator determines that the area did not attain the standard by
its attainment date, the area must be reclassified to the next
classification. However, CAA section 181(a)(5) provides an exemption
from these reclassification requirements. Under this provision, EPA may
grant up to two one-year extensions of the attainment date under
specified conditions. Specifically, in relevant part, section 181(a)(5)
states:
    Upon application by any State, the Administrator may extend for 1
additional year (hereinafter referred to as the ``Extension Year'') the
date specified in table 1 of paragraph (1) of this subsection if--
    (A) The State has complied with all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation plan, and
    (B) no more than 1 exceedance of the national ambient air quality
standard level for ozone has occurred in the area in the year preceding
the Extension Year.

With regard to the first element, ``applicable implementation plan'' is
defined in section 302(q) of the CAA as, the portion (or portions) of
the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof, which has
been approved under section 110, or promulgated under section 110(c),
or promulgated or approved pursuant to regulations promulgated under
section 301(d) and which implements the relevant requirements of the
CAA.

    The language in section 181(a)(5)(B) reflects the form of the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, which is exceedance based and does not reflect the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which is concentration based. Because section
181(a)(5)(B) does not reflect the form of the 8-hour NAAQS,

EPA promulgated a regulation interpreting this provision in a manner
consistent with Congressional intent but reflecting the form of the
1997 8-hour NAAQS. See 40 CFR 51.907. This regulation provides that an
area will be eligible for the first of the one-year extensions under
the 1997 8-hour NAAQS if, for the attainment year, the area's 4th
highest daily 8-hour average is 0.084 parts per million (ppm) or less.
The area will be eligible for the second extension if the area's 4th
highest daily 8-hour value averaged over both the original attainment
year and the first extension year is 0.084 ppm or less. No more than
two one-year extensions may be issued for a single nonattainment area.
    In summary, EPA interprets the CAA and implementing regulations to
allow the granting of a one-year extension under the following minimum
conditions: (1) The State requests a one-year extension; (2) all
requirements and commitments in the EPA-approved SIP for the area have
been complied with; and (3) the area has a 4th highest daily 8-hour
average of 0.084 ppm or less for the attainment year (or an area's 4th
highest daily 8-hour value averaged over both the original attainment
year and the first extension year is 0.084 ppm or less, if a second
one-year extension is requested). Because the bi-state Charlotte Area's
attainment date was June 15, 2010, the ``attainment year'' used for
this purpose is the 2009 ozone season. See 40 CFR 51.900(g). The North
Carolina and South Carolina ozone seasons run from April 1 to October
31 of any given year.

II. This Action

    EPA has determined that North Carolina and South Carolina have met
the CAA requirements to obtain a one-year extension of the June 2010
attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state
Charlotte Area. As a result, EPA is taking final action to extend the
bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment date from June 15, 2010, to June
15, 2011, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, EPA has
determined that North Carolina and South Carolina are in compliance
with the requirements and commitments associated with the EPA-approved
implementation plans, and that the 4th highest daily concentration for
2009 for the bi-state Charlotte Area is below the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA has reviewed the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS ambient air quality
monitoring data for the bi-state Charlotte Area, and has determined
that these data are consistent with the ozone monitoring requirements
contained in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I. These data are recorded in the
EPA Air Quality System database. These data are complete, quality-
assured, quality-controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data
for 2009. On the basis of that review, EPA has concluded that for the
attainment year ozone season of 2009, the bi-state Charlotte Area's 4th
highest daily 8-hour average concentration was 0.071 ppm, which is
below 0.084 ppm. As provided in CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR
51.907, this final action extends, by one year, the deadline by which
the bi-state Charlotte Area must attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. It
also extends the timeframe by which EPA must make an attainment
determination for the bi-state Charlotte Area.
    As described in section 181(a)(5) of the CAA, areas may qualify for
up to two one-year extensions. EPA notes that this final action only
relates to the initial one-year extension. The bi-state Charlotte Area
will be eligible for the second extension if the bi-state Charlotte
Area's 4th highest daily 8-hour value averaged over both the original
attainment year and the first extension year is 0.084 ppm or less and
the continues to comply with all requirements and commitments
pertaining to the bi-state Charlotte Area in the applicable
implementation plan. Any analysis of whether the bi-state Charlotte
Area qualifies for the second extension would be based on data from
both the 2009 and 2010 ozone seasons. If requested at a future date,
EPA will make a determination of the appropriateness of a second one-
year extension for the bi-state Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in a separate rulemaking.

III. Comments and Responses

    EPA received one set of adverse comments \1\ and two requests for
additional information for its proposal to approve the requests from
North Carolina and South Carolina to extend the attainment date for the
bi-state Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS from June 15,
2010, to June 15, 2011. The comments, received by September 3, 2010,
were from the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) on behalf of
Clean Air Carolina and from two citizens (hereinafter referred to as
``the Commenter''). Below is a summary of the comments and EPA's
response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The full text of the comments is available in the Docket for
this action. Electronic docket information can be found in the
``Addresses'' portion of this notice. The comments are summarized in
this Federal Register document; however, EPA considered all the
comments expressed in the letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1: The Commenter requests clarification on why the
attainment date for the bi-state Charlotte Area needs an extension and
on what grounds is the extension being granted.
    Response 1: Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated the bi-state
Charlotte Area as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Along
with this nonattainment designation, EPA classified the bi-state
Charlotte Area as a ``moderate'' ozone nonattainment area based on the
level of the three year design value for the area at the time of EPA's
designations. In accordance with the section 181 of the CAA,
``moderate'' areas are required to attain the ozone NAAQS ``as
expeditiously as practicable,'' but no later than 6 years after EPA's
nonattainment designation. This means that the bi-state Charlotte Area
was required to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2010
(based on monitoring data from the 2007 through 2009 ozone seasons). In
section 181(a)(5) of the CAA, Congress allows EPA to consider extension
of the attainment dates for ozone areas provided the area meets the
requirements for such extensions. See EPA's August 4, 2010, proposed
rulemaking at 75 FR 46881 for the detailed rationale for approval of
the bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment date extension, and the
``Background'' section of this rulemaking for more detail on the
section 181(a)(5) requirements. EPA has made the determination that
both North Carolina and South Carolina meet the requirements of section
181(a)(5) (as interpreted in 40 CFR 51.907) for the bi-state Charlotte
Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and as such EPA is granting an
extension of the 1997 8-hour ozone attainment date from June 15, 2010,
to June 15, 2011.
    Comment 2: The Commenter requests that EPA incorporate by reference
comments previously provided for the attainment demonstrations for the
bi-state Charlotte Area. Specifically, the Commenter states ``[t]hese
comments incorporate by reference SELC's June 10, 2010 and May 19, 2010
comments to the agency on the North Carolina and South Carolina 8-hour
ozone attainment demonstration plan submission, and SELC's March 29,
2010, March 22, 2010, December 17, 2009, November 13, 2003, and October
26, 2009, submissions to the North Carolina Division of Air Quality
(`NCDAQ') and the South Carolina Bureau of Air Quality, all of which
have been previously submitted to EPA.''

    Response 2: EPA's August 4, 2010, proposed action relates to the
States' requests for a one-year extension of the attainment date for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state Charlotte Area, and does
not relate to the approvability of the attainment demonstrations
submitted by North Carolina and South Carolina for the bi-state
Charlotte Area. There are separate requirements regarding requests for
attainment date extensions (relevant to this final action and described
in ``Background'' sections of EPA's August 4, 2010, proposed rulemaking
and this final rulemaking) and approval of attainment demonstrations.
EPA held a public comment period from August 4, 2010, through September
3, 2010, to provide the public with opportunity to specifically comment
on the proposed approval of the attainment date extension for the bi-
state Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commenter
provided a detailed letter with their comments in opposition to EPA's
proposed action to extend the bi-state Charlotte Area's attainment date
to which EPA is responding in this final rulemaking. Although the
Commenter suggests that EPA should incorporate by reference comments
previously submitted to North Carolina and South Carolina during their
state public comment periods for their attainment demonstrations and
reasonable further progress plans, and to EPA during a public comment
period on the attainment demonstration for the bi-state Charlotte
Area,\2\ the Commenter does not identify and EPA did not identify
anything in those comments that are relevant to the analysis of whether
the bi-state Charlotte Area is eligible for the first attainment date
extension provided under CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR 51.907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Commenter submitted comments during EPA's public comment
period for review of the adequacy of the motor vehicle emissions
budgets for the attainment demonstrations for the bi-state Charlotte
Area as provided by North Carolina and South Carolina. EPA has a
separate process from today's rulemaking to consider comments
received during EPA's Adequacy public comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The Commenter asserts several times throughout the
comment letter that EPA should reclassify the bi-state Charlotte Area
to ``serious'' for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, the
Commenter states ``EPA should instead reclassify the area to `serious'
nonattainment status * * *'' and ``[i]n the wake of the missed
deadline, the Act now requires reclassification of the Metrolina area
to `serious' status.'' The Commenter goes on to conclude that ``[t]he
proposed extension is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act's statutory
scheme and its emphasis on attainment deadlines. EPA should require
North and South Carolina officials to comply with the Act and prepare a
SIP revision consistent with the Metrolina area's legally required
bump-up to `serious' status.''
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertions and
conclusion that the Act requires the Agency to reclassify the bi-state
Charlotte Area to ``serious'' for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS ``[i]n
the wake of the missed deadline * * *'' Congress contemplated the
potential for areas to miss the attainment date deadlines in the CAA
and allows for extensions of the attainment date deadline so long as
areas meet the requirements of section 181(a)(5). EPA's analysis
indicates that both North Carolina and South Carolina have met the
requirements of section 181(a)(5) of the CAA (as interpreted by 40 CFR
51.907) for the initial one-year extension of the 1997 8-hour ozone
moderate area attainment date for the bi-state Charlotte Area, and thus
the Act does not require EPA to reclassify the bi-state Charlotte Area
to ``serious'' status. Additionally, given that EPA has determined that
the bi-state Charlotte Area qualifies for the one-year extension for
the moderate ozone classification, the bi-state Charlotte Area is not
subject to being ``bumped-up'' and thus is not subject to the planning
requirements that would be triggered by a bump-up.
    Comment 4: The Commenter states ``[t]he deadline for meeting the
1997 ozone standard was June 15, 2010, and there is still no Federally
approved State Implementation Plan (`SIP') for meeting that standard.
As a result, EPA lacks authority to grant the proposed extension, and
the Metrolina area should instead be reclassified to `serious'
nonattainment status, triggering the development of a new plan with
additional control strategies. As we explained in our previous
comments, the Clean Air Act allows EPA to grant extensions only when a
state has complied with all the requirements of the approved SIP for an
area. The States have no approved SIP for meeting the ozone NAAQS in
this area. As indicated in the notice, both states have provided
`necessary SIP [State Implementation Plan] submittals,' intended to
meet `outstanding requirements related to the 1997 8-hour ozone
attainment demonstration for the bi-state Charlotte area.' But these
plan submissions were not made until after the conclusion of the 2009
ozone season, and therefore could only purport to demonstrate
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, retroactively, despite modeling and
monitoring data to the contrary. The proposed extension signifies a de
facto approval of these plans and introduces a relaxed post hoc
standard, which would be contrary to the requirements of the Act and
which would encourage states to take a `wait-and-see' approach to SIP
control strategies.''
    Response 4: EPA does not agree with the Commenter's assertion that
EPA lacks the authority to grant the requests from North Carolina and
South Carolina for an extension of the bi-state Charlotte Area's 1997
8-hour ozone attainment date. In EPA's August 4, 2010, proposed
rulemaking, EPA explained that section 181(a)(5) of the CAA is what EPA
must consider when contemplating a state's request for a one-year
extension to an ozone attainment date. The Commenter appears to
question whether North Carolina and South Carolina meet the
requirements of section 181(a)(5)(A) which states ``the State has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area
in the applicable implementation plan * * *'' As noted in EPA's August
4, 2010, proposed rulemaking, the ``applicable implementation plan'' is
defined by the CAA in section 302(q) as ``the portion (or portions) of
the implementation plan, or most revision thereof, which has been
approved under section 7410 of this title, or promulgated under section
7410(c) of this title, or promulgated or approved pursuant to
regulations promulgated under section 7601(d) of this title and which
implements the relevant requirements of this chapter.'' [Emphasis
added].Thus, the ``compliance'' that is relevant to evaluating the
States' eligibility for an attainment date extension under section
181(a)(5) is solely with those requirements and commitments that have
been approved into the existing SIP--not with those which may yet be
approved. EPA has made an independent assessment of whether North
Carolina and South Carolina are in compliance with all the requirements
and commitments pertaining to the bi-state Charlotte Area in the
applicable implementation plan, as defined by section 302(q), and the
Agency has made the determination that both states are in compliance.
EPA also notes that originally, North Carolina and South Carolina
submitted attainment demonstrations for the bi-Charlotte Area for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on June 15, 2007, and August 31, 2007,
respectively. Subsequently, both states withdrew their original
attainment demonstrations but later submitted these attainment
demonstrations with

updated and supplemental information. EPA disagrees that this final
action is a de facto approval of these plans. These plans are still
pending before EPA. The Commenter also mentions that EPA's final action
to approve the extension of the attainment date for the bi-state
Charlotte Area introduces a relaxed post hoc standard, which would be
contrary to the requirements of the Act and which would encourage
states to take a ``wait-and-see'' approach to SIP control strategies.
EPA disagrees. If EPA determines that a state has not submitted a
required nonattainment area SIP, mandatory sanctions are imposed 18 and
24 months after such a finding and EPA is required to promulgate a
Federal implementation plan within two years. The CAA provides
appropriate incentives to ensure that states do not take a ``wait and
see'' approach for attainment of the NAAQS. When North Carolina and
South Carolina withdrew their original attainment demonstrations for
the bi-state Charlotte Area (which were provided in 2007), EPA issued a
finding of failure to submit. See 74 FR 21550 (May 8, 2009). The
submissions that both North Carolina and South Carolina provided in
2009 were provided in response to EPA's finding of failure to submit.
    Comment 5: One Commenter states ``[t]he Metrolina area's ozone
problem is chronic and significant.'' Additionally, the Commenter cites
the American Lung Association 2010 State of the Air Report and mentions
that the report ranks Charlotte as the 10th most polluted city in the
country for ozone. The Commenter goes on to state that ``[i]n contrast
to the anomalous 2009 ozone season, pollution levels during the first
part of the 2010 summer have continued to exceed the 1997 standard of
84 ppb [parts per billion][or 0.084 ppm], with the `County Line'
monitor registering as high as 96 ppb [or 0.096 ppm], and the Metrolina
monitors recording 30 exceedances of the 2008 standard (75 ppb [or
0.075 ppm]) as of August 28, 2010. Air quality planning should do as
much as possible to protect citizens' health in nonattainment areas,
and at the very least, the region must comply with express Clean Air
Act Requirements.'' Another Commenter states ``[t]he 2010 ozone season
clearly shows that the current control methods to obtain attainment for
the 1997 standard for the Charlotte region are not effective. The 2009
ozone season had favorable weather conditions. This alone allowed for
the low ozone numbers. The intent of Congress, through the CAA, is for
non-attainment areas to reach attainment. Delaying the decision by one
year will allow the Charlotte area to continue building roads. Is not
mobile sources the largest contributor to ozone formation in the
Charlotte area?''
    Response 5: EPA agrees with the Commenters that the unusually hot
summer of 2010 resulted in more exceedances of the ozone NAAQS at the
monitors within the bi-state Charlotte Area. However, based on EPA's
preliminary evaluation of the data, the bi-state Charlotte Area appears
to still be monitoring attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
Additionally, EPA's preliminary evaluation indicates that the bi-state
Charlotte Area could be eligible for the second extension of the
attainment date, if requested. Regardless, air quality data for the
2010 ozone season is not relevant to the issue of whether the bi-state
Charlotte Area qualifies for the first one-year extension of its
attainment date as provided under CAA section 181(a)(5) and 40 CFR
51.907. EPA notes that nonattainment areas are allowed to build roads
and are subject to requirements to demonstrate that these activities
will not interfere with air quality goals. EPA's granting of the one-
year extension to the attainment date will not relieve the bi-state
Charlotte Area of continuing to make the demonstration that
transportation planning activities will not interfere with air quality
goals.
    Comment 6: The Commenter states ``EPA may only extend the
nonattainment deadline for an area that has not met the NAAQS if `the
State has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to
the area in the applicable implementation plan.' 42 U.S.C. Sec.
7511(a)(5)(A). The Act defines `the term ``applicable implementation
plan' '' as `the portion (or portions) of the implementation plan, or
most recent revision thereof, which has been approved under section 110
of this title.' Id. Sec.  7602(q). [Emphasis added] Section 110, in
turn, provides that `[e]ach State shall * * * adopt and submit to the
Administrator, within 3 years * * * after promulgation of a [NAAQS] (or
any revision thereof) under section 109 [42 Sec.  USCS 7409] for any
air pollutant, a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance,
an enforcement of such primary standard in each air quality control
region * * * within such State,' Id. Sec.  7410(a)(1). Section 110 goes
on to prescribe that `each such plan shall * * * meet the applicable
requirements of Part D of this subchapter (relating to nonattainment
areas).' Id. Sec.  7410(a)(1). Among the applicable requirements of
Part D, `plan provisions * * * shall provide for attainment of the
national ambient air quality standards.' Id. Sec.  7502(c)(1). In other
words, to qualify for an extension, a state must comply with its
federally approved SIP, which among other requirements, must
demonstrate attainment.''
    Response 6: EPA agrees with the Commenter's citation to 42 U.S.C.
7511(a)(5)(A)[section 181(a)(5)(A)], and to 42 U.S.C. 7602(q) [section
302(q)] as the relevant provisions of the CAA to consider.
Additionally, EPA agrees with the Commenter's emphasis on ``which has
been approved'' of the Act's definition for the term ``applicable
implementation plan.'' It is the emphasis on ``which has been
approved'' that EPA relied on to make the determination that North
Carolina and South Carolina are meeting the requirements of
181(a)(5)(A). However, EPA does not agree with the Commenter's apparent
broadening of the definition of ``applicable implementation plan'' to
mean that EPA must consider plans which have not yet been approved. The
CAA is unambiguous on the requirements for EPA to grant an extension
and on what EPA should consider as the ``applicable implementation
plan,'' and based on those requirements, EPA has determined that both
North Carolina and South Carolina qualify for an extension of the
attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the bi-state
Charlotte Area.
    Comment 7: The Commenter notes that both North Carolina and South
Carolina submitted attainment demonstrations for the bi-state Charlotte
Area in 2007, but later withdrew these submissions after EPA sent a
letter to both States with a recommendation that North Carolina and
South Carolina request a voluntary reclassification of the bi-state
Charlotte Area to ``serious'' status for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Additionally, the Commenter notes that in EPA's letter, the Agency
states ``if we are required to take rulemaking action on the SIP, we
see no alternative to proposing disapproval of the SIP's attainment
demonstration.'' The Commenter goes on to state that ``[c]learly, the
States submitted `a plan' as contemplated by the extension provision,
but it was not an approvable plan, and therefore, not a plan that would
provide a basis for a future extension request. Indeed, rather than
demonstrate attainment, the modeling in the submissions actually
predicted that the area would fail to meet the standard by the
deadline. After signaling its intent to disapprove the submissions,
however, EPA allowed the States to ``withdraw'' their plans, an

action that is not authorized under the Clean Air Act, which
contravenes EPA's obligation to take action on a plan submission, and
`approve or disapprove it, either in whole or in part.' ''
    Response 7: These comments are not relevant to this rulemaking. The
issues raised concern whether attainment demonstrations submitted in
2007 adequately demonstrated whether the bi-state Charlotte Area would
attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by June 2010 and they do not address
whether the bi-state Charlotte Area qualifies for an attainment date
extension. EPA notes, however, that we disagree with the Commenter's
assertion that States are not authorized under the CAA to withdraw
submitted SIPs. The CAA does not directly address this issue; however,
EPA can see no reasonable interpretation that the Act prohibits a state
from withdrawing a submitted plan prior to EPA final action. The CAA
provides states with a choice whether to submit plans and to take the
lead in regulating sources for purposes of attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS. Consistent with that overall paradigm, states can choose
to withdraw submitted SIPs at any time prior to EPA final action, which
establishes those requirements under Federal law. Once the plan is
approved and made Federally enforceable, it can no longer be withdrawn
or altered except through a SIP revision or a Federal implementation
plan. If the withdrawn SIP had been submitted to meet a specific
statutory requirement and the state does not replace the SIP submission
upon withdrawal with a new SIP submission to meet that statutory
requirement (or, in appropriate instances, with an attainment
determination that suspends the obligation to meet such requirement),
EPA has the authority to make a finding of failure to submit for that
required submission. EPA also notes that subsequently, both North
Carolina and South Carolina resubmitted their attainment demonstrations
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 8: The Commenter states that ``[d]uring the 2009 ozone
season, cool temperatures and a slow economy contributed to a dramatic
decline in ozone pollution, albeit not enough to bring the three-year
ozone design value into attainment by the June 2010 deadline.
Nevertheless, the States have resubmitted their `withdrawn' 2007
submissions for public comment and agency approval, along with
supplemental plans that establish higher motor vehicle emissions
budgets. These submissions do not provide the legal basis for an
extension because they have never been federally approved, and thus
have not be made federally enforceable, see 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7413, and
they therefore do not meet the definition of `applicable implementation
plan.' ''
    Response 8: As provided in previous responses, EPA disagrees with
the Commenter's premise that the attainment demonstration submissions
are required to be approved in order for EPA to grant the request from
North Carolina and South Carolina for a one-year extension to the
attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 9: The Commenter states that ``EPA's Federal Register
notice appears to indicate that the States `are meeting their
federally-approved implementation plans' by virtue of adequate
monitoring alone. 75 Fed. Reg. 46881, 46883.'' Further, the Commenter
mentions that ``EPA guidance documents direct states requesting an
extension under 42 U.S.C. Sec.  7511(a)(5) to both certify compliance
with the approved SIP for the current classification, and to document
the preparations being taken to address the `consequences of eventually
not attaining the NAAQS,' including meeting new requirements that take
effect upon reclassification of the area.'' The Commenter concludes
this point by stating ``[t]he States' extension requests, however,
neither explain how they have complied with all requirements of an
`approved SIP' that does not exist, nor mention the possibility that
the area might not attain the NAAQS by the extended deadline.''
    Response 9: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that EPA's
analysis of whether North Carolina and South Carolina ``are meeting
their federally-approved implementation plans'' is ``by virtue of
adequate monitoring alone.'' Over the past several years, the bi-state
Charlotte Area has benefitted from the reduction in emissions
attributable to the implementation of federal, state and local
programs. Some of the federal control measures that have come on line
since the bi-state Charlotte Area was designated nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2004 include: Tier 2 vehicle and fuels
standards; heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway vehicle standards;
nonroad spark-ignition engines and recreational engines standards; and
large nonroad diesel engine standards. North Carolina has also
implemented state programs that have provided emissions reductions in
the bi-state Charlotte Area. These state programs include: (1) The
Clean Air Bill which expanded the inspection and maintenance program
from 9 to 48 counties; (2) North Carolina's nitrogen oxide (NOx) SIP
Call rule which was predicted to reduce summertime NOx emissions from
power plants and other industries by sixty-eight percent; and (3) North
Carolina's Clean Smokestack Act which required coal-fired power plants
in North Carolina to reduce annual NOx emissions by seventy-seven
percent by 2009, and to reduce annual sulfur dioxide emissions by
forty-nine percent by 2009 and seventy-three percent by 2013.
Additionally, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that an
``approved SIP'' does not exist for the bi-state Charlotte Area. As
noted in EPA's proposed rulemaking, the ``applicable implementation
plan'' is defined by the CAA in section 302(q) as the portion (or
portions) of the implementation plan, or most recent revision thereof,
which has been approved under section 110, or promulgated under section
110(c), or promulgated or approved pursuant to regulations promulgated
under section 301(d) and which implements the relevant requirements of
the CAA. Lastly, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement
indicating that the States did not provide the necessary certification
regarding compliance with their approved SIPs. On April 28, 2010, NC
DENR stated in a letter to EPA, that it ``certifies that the state has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area
in the applicable ozone implementation plan.'' On May 6, 2010, SC DHEC,
in a letter to EPA, stated ``South Carolina has complied with all
requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the South
Carolina State Implementation Plan.'' EPA believes that these
statements provide the necessary certification from the States. EPA
also notes that North Carolina and South Carolina considered the
consequences of eventually not attaining the NAAQS. They conducted
modeling for the year 2012 in case they did not have clean data and
were required to be reclassified to serious. That modeling would have
been submitted to EPA as the States' attainment demonstration for a
serious classification had the area been reclassified to serious.
    Comment 10: The Commenter states that ``[t]he agency's permissive
proposed approach would encourage poor air quality planning. Indeed,
the State's plan submissions allow unfettered expansion of the area's
highway network without regard to long-term air quality consequences.''
The Commenter goes on to say that ``[r]eclassification of the area to
`serious' nonattainment status would require better developed and more
accurate travel modeling that would help to

ensure that road capacity investments will not compromise air quality
for years to come. See 40 CFR Sec.  93.122''
    Response 10: The August 4, 2010, proposed rulemaking and this final
action do not involve the approval of any plans for the bi-state
Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, while
not relevant to this final action, EPA notes that the development of
the mobile emissions in the States' attainment demonstration plans for
the bi-state Charlotte Area were developed through a required
interagency process, pursuant to 40 CFR 93.105, that includes federal,
state and local air quality and transportation partners. The Commenter
mentions that the ``[r]eclassification of the area to `serious'
nonattainment status would require better developed and more accurate
travel modeling that would help to ensure that road capacity
investments will not compromise air quality for years to come.'' While
EPA agrees that there are different travel demand modeling requirements
for ``serious'' versus ``moderate'' ozone areas, EPA also notes that 40
CFR 93.122(d) states ``[i]n all areas not otherwise subject to
paragraph (b) of this subsection, regional emissions analyses must use
those procedures described in paragraph (b) of this section if the use
of those procedures has been the previous practice of the MPO * * *''
The transportation modeling requirements for ``serious'' areas are
outlined in 40 CFR 93.122(b). In a letter dated December 3, 2010, NC
DENR provided EPA with additional information regarding the travel
demand modeling practices currently employed in the bi-state Charlotte
Area. Attached to the letter, the Senior Transportation Planner for the
Charlotte Department of Transportation provides a comparison of the
current practice for travel demand modeling for the entire bi-state
Charlotte Area and the requirements of 40 CFR 93.122(b) for a
``serious'' area. The comparison demonstrates that the current
practices for travel demand modeling meet the requirements for a
``serious'' area although the bi-state Charlotte Area is a ``moderate''
area. NC DENR's December 3, 2010, letter can be found in the docket for
this final rulemaking. A reclassification of the area to ``serious''
would not change the current travel demand modeling practice in the bi-
state Charlotte Area since the bi-state Charlotte Area is currently
meeting the ``serious'' area requirements, and in accordance with 40
CFR 93.122(b) and (d), this practice must be maintained.
    Comment 11: The Commenter mentions that ``[s]tate officials have
argued that reclassifying and undertaking more stringent control
measures to ensure compliance with the existing ozone standard is
unnecessary because EPA will soon approve a new standard and require
new plans to meet the standard.'' Further, the Commenter goes on to
say, ``* * * not only has EPA recently delayed its expected release of
the new, stricter standards, but even without delay, waiting until
implementation of the new standard would result in several years of
delay in the adoption of the additional control measures required today
as part of `bump up' to a `serious' classification.'' The Commenter
continues by noting the delay of the promulgation of the new ozone
standard and anticipated dates for the attainment demonstration
submissions. The Commenter mentions ``approval of inadequate plans now
will only delay efforts to address the serious air quality problems in
the Charlotte metro area and make attainment under the 2008 standard,
or a stronger one, much more difficult, uncertain, and expensive.''
    Response 11: Neither the States' position (as articulated by the
Commenter) nor this comment are relevant to this action. This action
solely concerns whether the States have demonstrated that a one-year
attainment date extension is appropriate for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA
notes that in a separate process, the Agency is reconsidering the 2008
ozone NAAQS and, if EPA determines a different NAAQS should be
promulgated, the Agency will undertake rulemaking to address the
requirements for the implementation of that NAAQS. The fact that EPA
may issue a new standard at a future date has no bearing on whether the
area qualifies for a one-year extension of its attainment date for the
1997 ozone NAAQS.
    Comment 12: In their comment letter, the Commenter notes that at a
meeting with EPA Region 4, EPA staff suggested that the Act requires
the Agency to grant an extension. The Commenter states ``[n]o legal
grounds exist for such an interpretation'' and goes on to state ``[t]he
agency only has authority to grant an extension when a state's air
quality and compliance with an approved implementation plan satisfy the
statutory requirements, and even then, the agency's authority to grant
an extension is discretionary.'' The Commenter also states ``To the
contrary, disapproving the plan submissions and requiring bump-up is
the only action that complies with the plain meaning of the Clean Air
Act.''
    Response 12: For the reasons provided in previous comments, EPA
disagrees with the Commenter's interpretation of the Act.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's April 28,
2010, and South Carolina's May 6, 2010, requests for EPA to grant a
one-year extension (from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011) of the bi-
state Charlotte Area attainment date for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA has determined that both North Carolina and South Carolina have met
the statutory requirements for such an extension.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve SIP
submissions and requests that comply with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing the States' requests for an extension of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS attainment date for the bi-state Charlotte Area, EPA's
role is to approve the States' requests, provided that they meet the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves
a state request for an extension of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
attainment date as meeting federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this final 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).
    EPA has also determined that the one year extension for the bi-
state Charlotte Area does not have Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because there
are no ``substantial direct effects'' on an Indian Tribe as a result of
this action. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within
the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area. EPA notes
that the proposal for this rule incorrectly stated that the South
Carolina ``SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state.'' However, pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement
Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws
and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation
and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' Thus, the South Carolina SIP does apply to the Catawba
Reservation. This final action to approve the one year extension for
the bi-state Charlotte Area, however, does not add, subtract or change
any existing state or local regulations in the SIP. Therefore, EPA has
determined that there will be no substantial direct effects to the
Catawba. In addition, EPA also notes that this final action will not
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 1, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: May 19, 2011.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  81.334, the table entitled ``North Carolina-Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended under ``Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC'' by
revising the entries for ``Cabarrus County,'' ``Gaston County,''
``Iredell County (part) Davidson Township, Coddle Creek Township,''
``Lincoln County,'' ``Mecklenburg County,'' ``Rowan County,'' and
``Union County'', and adding footnote 4, to read as follows:

Sec.  81.334  North Carolina.

* * * * *

                                                                  North Carolina--Ozone
                                                                    [8-Hour standard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Designation \a\                                        Category/classification
            Designated             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                         Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-   This action is effective    Nonattainment.............  June 15, 2004.............  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
 SC.                                 May 31, 2011.
Cabarrus County...................  This action is effective    Nonattainment.............  June 15, 2004.............  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
                                     May 31, 2011.
Gaston County.....................  This action is effective    Nonattainment.............  June 15, 2004.............  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
                                     May 31, 2011.
Iredell County (part) Davidson      This action is effective    Nonattainment.............  June 15, 2004.............  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
 Township, Coddle Creek Township.    May 31, 2011.
Lincoln County....................  This action is effective    Nonattainment.............  June 15, 2004.............  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
                                     May 31, 2011.
Mecklenburg County................  This action is effective    Nonattainment.............  June 15, 2004.............  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
                                     May 31, 2011.
Rowan County......................  This action is effective    Nonattainment.............  June 15, 2004.............  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
                                     May 31, 2011.
Union County......................  This action is effective    Nonattainment.............  June 15, 2004.............  \4\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
                                     May 31, 2011.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * * * *
\4\ Attainment date extended to June 15, 2011.
* * * * * * *

    3. In Sec.  81.341, the table entitled ``South Carolina--Ozone (8-
Hour Standard)'' is amended under ``Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-
SC'' by revising the entry for ``York County (part) Portion along MPO
lines'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.341  South Carolina.

* * * * *

                                                                  South Carolina--Ozone
                                                                    [8-Hour standard]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Designation \a\                                        Category/classification
            Designated             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Date \1\                      Type                      Date \1\                         Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-
 SC:
York County (part) Portion along    This action is effective    Nonattainment.............  June 15, 2004.............  \3\ Subpart 2/Moderate.
 MPO lines.                          May 31, 2011.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.
* * * * * * *
\3\ Attainment date extended to June 15, 2011.
* * * * * * *

[FR Doc. 2011-13278 Filed 5-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 1, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8893-8894]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02164]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 20 / Wednesday, February 1, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security

15 CFR Part 774

[Docket No. 160718621-7125-02]
RIN 0694-AH04

Commerce Control List: Removal of Certain Nuclear
Nonproliferation (NP) Column 2 Controls

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of implementation date.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from
the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled
``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,'' published in the Federal Register
on January 24, 2017 (the Memorandum), this action temporarily delays
the implementation date of one revision implemented by the final rule
entitled ``Commerce Control List: Removal of Certain Nuclear
Nonproliferation (NP) Column 2 Controls'' published by the Bureau of
Industry and Security (BIS) in the Federal Register on November 25,
2016. The final rule amended the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR) to remove nuclear nonproliferation (NP) Column 2 license
requirements from certain pressure tubes, pipes, fittings, pipe valves,
pumps, numerically controlled machine tools, oscilloscopes, and
transient recorders on the Commerce Control List (CCL).

DATES: This rule is effective January 31, 2017. ``Software''
``specially designed'' for the ``development,'' ``production,'' or
``use'' of items previously controlled under ECCN 3A292, as discussed
in the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 25,
2016 (81 FR 85138), will continue to be classified and licensed by BIS
under the designation EAR99 through a delayed date of March 21, 2017.
As of March 22, 2017, such ``software'' will be classified and licensed
by BIS under ECCN 3D991.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Clagett, Director, Nuclear and
Missile Technology Controls Division, Office of Nonproliferation and
Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202)
482-1641.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 25, 2016, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
published a final rule entitled ``Commerce Control List: Removal of
Certain Nuclear Nonproliferation (NP) Column 2 Controls'' (81 FR 85138)
to amend the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to remove nuclear
nonproliferation (NP) Column 2 license requirements from certain
pressure tubes, pipes, fittings, pipe valves, pumps, numerically
controlled machine tools, oscilloscopes, and transient recorders on the
Commerce Control List (CCL). These changes were intended to revise the
EAR controls on these items by making them more consistent with the
export controls of other countries that manufacture these items and
that, together with the United States, are participating countries in
the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). As a result of the changes made by
this rule, some of these items were no longer listed under an Export
Control Classification Number (ECCN) on the CCL. However, such items
remain subject to the EAR under the designation EAR99. This rule also
created four new ECCNs to maintain anti-terrorism (AT) controls on
certain affected commodities and related ``software'' and
``technology.'' All items subject to the EAR, regardless of whether
they are listed on the CCL, may require a license for reasons described
elsewhere in the EAR (e.g., license requirements based on end-user/end-
use controls, embargoes, or other special controls).
    All but one of the changes made by this rule were implemented on
the date of publication, November 25, 2016. A consequence of the
amendment of ECCN 3A992 to add certain oscilloscopes and transient
recorders under new paragraphs 3A992.d through .g, was that ECCN 3D991,
which includes certain ``software'' for general purpose electronic
equipment described in ECCN 3A992, then also controlled ``software''
for the ``development,'' ``production,'' or ``use'' of the
oscilloscopes and transient recorders described in new 3A992.d through
.g. Such ``software'' had been classified and licensed by BIS under the
designation EAR99, and its classification under 3D991 imposed a foreign
policy control on the ``software'' for anti-terrorism reasons. BIS must
notify Congress before imposing such a control. This modification in
the application of foreign policy controls under the EAR was addressed
in BIS's ``2017 Report on Foreign Policy-Based Export Controls,''
submitted to the Congress in January 2017. Therefore, the November 25
rule delayed the implementation of this control through January 31,
2017. Effective February 1, 2017, such ``software'' would have been
classified and licensed by BIS under ECCN 3D991 and would have required
a license to destinations indicated under Anti-Terrorism (AT) Column 1
on the Commerce Country Chart.

Provisions of This Action

    This action delays the implementation date of the imposition of
anti-terrorism controls on ``software'' ``specially designed'' for the
``development,'' ``production,'' or ``use'' of items previously
controlled under ECCN 3A292 but reclassified by the November 25 rule.
Such ``software'' had been classified and licensed by BIS under the
designation EAR99; as a result of the November 25 rule, it will be
classified and licensed by BIS under ECCN 3D991. The implementation
date of this change had been January 31, 2017, but this action delays
the implementation date to March 21, 2017. This action is issued in
accordance with the Memorandum that required temporary postponement of
rules that have been published in the Federal Register but have not yet
taken effect, for 60 days from the date of the Memorandum for the
purpose of reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy.

Determination of Exemption From Notice and Comment

    To the extent that the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 apply to this
action, there is good cause to exempt this action from notice and
comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). BIS is delaying the

effective date for this action to give DOC officials the opportunity to
further review and consider the revision, consistent with the
Memorandum. The rule published November 25 containing the revision was
exempt from notice and comment because it involved a military and
foreign affairs function of the United States (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)).
Given the imminence of the new effective date, seeking prior public
comment on this temporary delay would be impractical, unnecessary, and
also contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and
implementation of regulations.

    Dated: January 27, 2017.
Matthew S. Borman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-02164 Filed 1-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-33-P