[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 197 (Tuesday, October 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61311-61317]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25839]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0657; FRL-9935-18-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; MI; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the
2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve elements of state implementation plan (SIP)
submissions by Michigan regarding the infrastructure requirements of
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 2010 sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and 2012 fine particulate (PM2.5) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements
are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's
air quality management program are adequate to meet the requirements of
the CAA. The proposed rulemaking associated with this final action was
published on June 24, 2015, and EPA received one comment letter during
the comment period, which ended on July 24, 2015. The concerns raised
in this letter, as well as EPA's responses, are addressed in this final
action.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0657. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly-available only in hard copy. Publicly-available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois
60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you
telephone Sarah Arra at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

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

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?

A. What does this rulemaking address?

    This rulemaking addresses infrastructure SIP submissions from the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted on July
10, 2014, for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2,
and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

B. Why did the state make this SIP submission?

    Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to
submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. These
submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the
applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications
that their existing SIPs already meet those requirements.
    EPA has highlighted this statutory requirement in multiple guidance
documents, including the most recent guidance document entitled
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' issued on September 13, 2013.

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    EPA is acting upon Michigan's SIP submissions that address the
infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make SIP
submissions of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years
(or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),'' and these SIP submissions are to provide for the
``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The

statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP
submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not
conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new
or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific
elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    This rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are not
integral to acting on the state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (``SSM'') at sources, that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess
emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance''
or ``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(collectively referred to as ``director's discretion''); and, (iii)
existing provisions for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's
``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as
amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA
has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in
separate rulemaking. A detailed rationale, history, and interpretation
related to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in our May 13,
2014, proposed rule entitled, ``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the
2008 Lead NAAQS'' in the section, ``What is the scope of this
rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245).
    In addition, EPA is not acting on submissions related to a portion
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility, section
110(a)(2)(J) with respect to visibility for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
submittals, and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interstate transport
significant contribution and interference with maintenance for 2008
ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS submittals.
EPA is also not acting on submissions related to section 110(a)(2)(I)--
Nonattainment Area Plan or Plan Revisions Under Part D, in its
entirety. The rationale for not acting on submittals regarding elements
of these requirements was included in EPA's June 24, 2015, proposed
rulemaking.
    EPA's June 24, 2015, proposed rulemaking also proposed approving a
submission from Michigan addressing the state board requirements under
section 128 of the CAA. EPA finalized this approval in a separate
rulemaking on August 3, 2015 (see 80 FR 52399).

II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposed actions with respect
to Michigan's satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements for
the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS closed on July 24, 2015. EPA received one
comment letter, which pertained to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, submitted
jointly by the Sierra Club and Earthjustice. A synopsis of the comments
contained in this letter and EPA's responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The commenter states that, on its face, the CAA
``requires I-SIPs to be adequate to prevent violations of the NAAQS.''
In support, the commenter quotes the language in section 110(a)(1) that
requires states to adopt a plan for implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS and the language in section 110(a)(2)(A) which
requires SIPs to include enforceable emissions limitations as may be
necessary to meet the requirements of the CAA and which commenter
claimed include the maintenance plan requirement. The commenter notes
the CAA definition of ``emission limit'' and reads these provisions
together to require ``enforceable emission limitations on source
emissions sufficient to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS.''
    Response 1: EPA disagrees that section 110 must be interpreted in
the manner suggested by the commenter. Section 110 is only one
provision that is part of the complex structure governing
implementation of the NAAQS program under the CAA, as amended in 1990,
and it must be interpreted in the context of not only that structure,
but also of the historical evolution of that structure. In light of the
revisions to section 110 since 1970 and the later-promulgated and more
specific planning requirements of the CAA, EPA interprets the
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) that the plan provide for
``implementation, maintenance and enforcement'' to mean that the
infrastructure SIP must contain enforceable emission limits that will
aid in attaining and/or maintaining the NAAQS and that the state must
demonstrate that it has the necessary tools to implement and enforce a
NAAQS, such as adequate state personnel and an enforcement program.
    Our interpretation that infrastructure SIPs are more general
planning SIPs is consistent with the statute as understood in light of
its history and structure. When Congress enacted the CAA in 1970, it
did not include provisions requiring states and the EPA to label areas
as attainment or nonattainment. Rather, states were required to include
all areas of the state in ``air quality control regions'' (AQCRs), and
section 110 set forth the core substantive planning provisions for
these AQCRs. At that time, Congress anticipated that states would be
able to address air pollution quickly pursuant to the very general
planning provisions in section 110 and could bring all areas into
compliance with the NAAQS within five years. Moreover, at that time,
section 110(a)(2)(A)(i) specified that a section 110 plan must provide
for ``attainment'' of the NAAQS, and section 110(a)(2)(B) specified
that the plan must include ``emission limitations, schedules, and
timetables for compliance with such limitations, and such other
measures as may be necessary to insure attainment and maintenance [of
the NAAQS].'' In 1977, Congress recognized that the existing structure
was not sufficient and many areas were still violating the NAAQS. At
that time, Congress for the first time added provisions requiring
states and EPA to identify whether areas of the state were violating
the NAAQS (i.e., were nonattainment) or were meeting the NAAQS (i.e.,
were attainment) and established specific planning requirements in
section 172 for areas not meeting the NAAQS.
    In 1990, many areas still had air quality that did not meet the
NAAQS, and Congress again amended the CAA, adding yet another layer of
more prescriptive planning requirements for each of the NAAQS, with the
primary provisions for ozone in section 182. At that same time,
Congress modified

section 110 to remove references to the section 110 SIP providing for
attainment, including removing pre-existing section 110(a)(2)(A) in its
entirety and renumbering subparagraph (B) as section 110(a)(2)(A).
    Additionally, Congress replaced the clause ``as may be necessary to
insure attainment and maintenance [of the NAAQS]'' with ``as may be
necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this
chapter.'' Thus, the CAA has significantly evolved in the more than 40
years since it was originally enacted. While at one time section 110
did provide the only detailed SIP planning provisions for states and
specified that such plans must provide for attainment of the NAAQS,
under the structure of the current CAA, section 110 is only the initial
stepping-stone in the planning process for a specific NAAQS. And, more
detailed, later-enacted provisions govern the substantive planning
process, including planning for attainment of the NAAQS.
    With regard to the requirement for emission limitations, EPA has
interpreted this to mean that, for purposes of section 110, the state
may rely on measures already in place to address the pollutant at issue
or any new control measures that the state may choose to submit. As EPA
stated in ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' dated September
13, 2013 (Infrastructure SIP Guidance), ``[t]he conceptual purpose of
an infrastructure SIP submission is to assure that the air agency's SIP
contains the necessary structural requirements for the new or revised
NAAQS, whether by establishing that the SIP already contains the
necessary provisions, by making a substantive SIP revision to update
the SIP, or both. Overall, the infrastructure SIP submission process
provides an opportunity . . . to review the basic structural
requirements of the air agency's air quality management program in
light of each new or revised NAAQS.'' Infrastructure SIP Guidance at p.
2.
    Comment 2: The commenter cites two excerpts from the legislative
history of the CAA Amendments of 1970 asserting that they support an
interpretation that SIP revisions under CAA section 110 must include
emissions limitations sufficient to show maintenance of the NAAQS in
all areas of Michigan. The commenter also contends that the legislative
history of the CAA supports the interpretation that infrastructure SIPs
under section 110(a)(2) must include enforceable emission limitations,
citing the Senate Committee Report and the subsequent Senate Conference
Report accompanying the 1970 CAA.
    Response 2: The CAA, as enacted in 1970, including its legislative
history, cannot be interpreted in isolation from the later amendments
that refined that structure and deleted relevant language from section
110 concerning demonstrating attainment. In any event, the two excerpts
of legislative history the commenter cites merely provide that states
should include enforceable emission limits in their SIPs; they do not
mention or otherwise address whether states are required to include
maintenance plans for all areas of the state as part of the
infrastructure SIP.
    Comment 3: The commenter cites to 40 CFR 51.112(a), providing that
each plan must ``demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations
contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and
maintenance of the [NAAQS].'' The commenter asserts that this
regulation requires all SIPs to include emissions limits necessary to
ensure attainment of the NAAQS. The commenter states that ``[a]lthough
these regulations were developed before the Clean Air Act separated
Infrastructure SIPs from nonattainment SIPs--a process that began with
the 1977 amendments and was completed by the 1990 amendments--the
regulations apply to ISIPs.'' The commenter relies on a statement in
the preamble to the 1986 action restructuring and consolidating
provisions in part 51, in which EPA stated that ``[i]t is beyond the
scope of th[is] rulemaking to address the provisions of Part D of the
Act. . . .'' 51 FR 40656 (November 7, 1986).
    Response 3: The commenter's reliance on 40 CFR 51.112 to support
its argument that infrastructure SIPs must contain emission limits
``adequate to prohibit NAAQS violations'' and adequate or sufficient to
ensure the maintenance of the NAAQS is not supported. As an initial
matter, EPA notes and the commenter recognizes this regulatory
provision was initially promulgated and ``restructured and
consolidated'' prior to the CAA Amendments of 1990, in which Congress
removed all references to ``attainment'' in section 110(a)(2)(A). In
addition, it is clear on its face that 40 CFR 51.112 applies to plans
specifically designed to attain the NAAQS. EPA interprets these
provisions to apply when states are developing ``control strategy''
SIPs such as the detailed attainment and maintenance plans required
under other provisions of the CAA, as amended in 1977 and again in
1990, such as section 175A and 182.
    The commenter suggests that these provisions must apply to section
110 SIPs because, in the preamble to EPA's action ``restructuring and
consolidating'' provisions in part 51, EPA stated that the new
attainment demonstration provisions in the 1977 Amendments to the CAA
were ``beyond the scope'' of the rulemaking. It is important to note,
however, that EPA's action in 1986 was not to establish new substantive
planning requirements, but rather to consolidate and restructure
provisions that had previously been promulgated. EPA noted that it had
already issued guidance addressing the new ``Part D'' attainment
planning obligations. Also, as to maintenance regulations, EPA
expressly stated that it was not making any revisions other than to re-
number those provisions. Id. at 40657.
    Although EPA was explicit that it was not establishing requirements
interpreting the provisions of new ``Part D'' of the CAA, it is clear
that the regulations being restructured and consolidated were intended
to address control strategy plans. In the preamble, EPA clearly stated
that 40 CFR 51.112 was replacing 40 CFR 51.13 (``Control strategy:
SOX and PM (portion)''), 51.14 (``Control strategy: CO, HC,
Ox and NO2 (portion)''), 51.80 (``Demonstration of
attainment: Pb (portion)''), and 51.82 (``Air quality data
(portion)''). Id. at 40660. Thus, the present-day 40 CFR 51.112
contains consolidated provisions that are focused on control strategy
SIPs, and the infrastructure SIP is not such a plan.
    Comment 4: The commenter references two prior EPA rulemaking
actions where EPA disapproved or proposed to disapprove SIPs, and
claimed they were actions in which EPA relied on section 110(a)(2)(A)
and 40 CFR 51.112 to reject infrastructure SIPs. The commenter first
points to a 2006 partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions
to Missouri's existing plan addressing the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) NAAQS. In that action, EPA cited section 110(a)(2)(A)
as a basis for disapproving a revision to the state plan on the basis
that the state failed to demonstrate the SIP was sufficient to ensure
maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS after revision of an emission
limit and cited to 40 CFR 51.112 as requiring that a plan demonstrates
the rules in a SIP are adequate to attain the NAAQS. Second, the
commenter cites a 2013 proposed disapproval of a revision to the
SO2 SIP for Indiana, where the revision attempted to remove
an emission limit that applied to a specific emissions source at a
facility in the

state. EPA relied on 40 CFR 51.112(a) in proposing to reject the
revision, stating that the state had not demonstrated that the emission
limit was ``redundant, unnecessary, or that its removal would not
result in or allow an increase in actual SO2 emissions.''
EPA further stated in that proposed disapproval that the state had not
demonstrated that removal of the limit would not ``affect the validity
of the emission rates used in the existing attainment demonstration.''
    Response 4: EPA does not agree that the two prior actions
referenced by the commenter establish how EPA reviews infrastructure
SIPs. It is clear from both the final Missouri rule and the now final
Indiana rule that EPA was not reviewing initial infrastructure SIP
submissions under section 110 of the CAA, but rather reviewing
revisions that would make an already approved SIP designed to
demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS less stringent.
    EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval of revisions to
restrictions on emissions of sulfur compounds for the Missouri SIP
addressed a control strategy SIP and not an infrastructure SIP (71 FR
12623).
    Similarly, the Indiana action also does not support for the
commenter's position (78 FR 78720). The review in that rule was of a
completely different requirement than the 110(a)(2)(A) SIP. Rather, in
that case, the state had an approved SO2 attainment plan and
was seeking to remove from the SIP provisions relied on as part of the
modeled attainment demonstration. EPA determined that the state had
failed to demonstrate under section 110(l) of the CAA that the SIP
revision would not result in increased SO2 emissions and
thus not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. Nothing in that
rulemaking addresses the necessary content of the initial
infrastructure SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Rather, it is simply
applying the clear statutory requirement that a state must demonstrate
why a revision to an approved attainment plan will not interfere with
attainment of the NAAQS.
    Comment 5: The commenter discusses several cases applying to the
CAA which it claims support its contention that courts have been clear
that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires enforceable emissions limits in
infrastructure SIPs to prevent violations of the NAAQS and demonstrate
maintenance throughout the area. The commenter first cites to language
in Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 78 (1975), addressing the requirement
for ``emission limitations'' and stating that emission limitations
``are specific rules to which operators of pollution sources are
subject, and which if enforced should result in ambient air which meet
the national standards.'' The commenter also cites to Pennsylvania
Dept. of Envtl. Resources v. EPA, 932 F.2d 269, 272 (3d Cir. 1991) for
the proposition that the CAA directs EPA to withhold approval of a SIP
where it does not ensure maintenance of the NAAQS and Mision
Industrial, Inc. v. EPA, 547 F.2d 123, 129 (1st Cir. 1976), which
quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the CAA of 1970. The commenter contends
that the 1990 Amendments do not alter how courts have interpreted the
requirements of section 110, quoting Alaska Dept. of Envtl.
Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 470 (2004) which in turn quoted
section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA and also stated that ``SIPs must
include certain measures Congress specified'' to ensure attainment of
the NAAQS. The commenter quotes several additional opinions in this
vein. Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th Cir.
2012) (``The Clean Air Act directs states to develop implementation
plans--SIPs--that `assure' attainment and maintenance of [NAAQS]
through enforceable emissions limitations''); Hall v. EPA 273 F.3d
1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2001) (``Each State must submit a [SIP] that
specif[ies] the manner in which [NAAQS] will be achieved and maintained
within each air quality control region in the state''). The commenter
also cites Mich. Dept. of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th
Cir. 2000) for the proposition that EPA may not approve a SIP revision
that does not demonstrate how the rules would not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response 5: None of the cases the commenter cites supports the
commenter's contention that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that
infrastructure SIPs include detailed plans providing for attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in all areas of the state, nor do they shed
light on how section 110(a)(2)(A) may reasonably be interpreted. With
the exception of Train, 421 U.S. 60, none of the cases the commenter
cites concerned the interpretation of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (or
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 Act). Rather, in the context of a
challenge to an EPA action, revisions to a SIP that were required and
approved as meeting other provisions of the CAA or in the context of an
enforcement action, the court references section 110(a)(2)(A) (or
section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA) in the background section of
its decision.
    In Train, a case that was decided almost 40 years ago, the court
addressed a state revision to an attainment plan submission made
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, the sole statutory provision at
that time regulating such submissions. The issue in that case concerned
whether changes to requirements that would occur before attainment was
required were variances that should be addressed pursuant to the
provision governing SIP revisions or were ``postponements'' that must
be addressed under section 110(f) of the CAA of 1970, which contained
prescriptive criteria. The court concluded that EPA reasonably
interpreted section 110(f) not to restrict a state's choice of the mix
of control measures needed to attain the NAAQS and that revisions to
SIPs that would not impact attainment of the NAAQS by the attainment
date were not subject to the limits of section 110(f). Thus, the issue
was not whether a section 110 SIP needs to provide for attainment or
whether emissions limits are needed as part of the SIP; rather the
issue was which statutory provision governed when the state wanted to
revise the emission limits in its SIP if such revision would not impact
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. To the extent the holding in
the case has any bearing on how section 110(a)(2)(A) might be
interpreted, it is important to realize that in 1975, when the opinion
was issued, section 110(a)(2)(B) (the predecessor to section
110(a)(2)(A)) expressly referenced the requirement to attain the NAAQS,
a reference that was removed in 1990.
    The decision in Pennsylvania Dept. of Envtl. Resources was also
decided based on the pre-1990 provision of the CAA. At issue was
whether EPA properly rejected a revision to an approved plan where the
inventories relied on by the state for the updated submission had gaps.
The court quoted section 110(a)(2)(B) of the pre-1990 CAA in support of
EPA's disapproval, but did not provide any interpretation of that
provision. Yet, even if the court had interpreted that provision, EPA
notes that it was modified by Congress in 1990; thus, this decision has
little bearing on the issue here.
    At issue in Mision Industrial, 547 F.2d 123, was the definition of
``emissions limitation,'' not whether section 110 requires the state to
demonstrate how all areas of the state will attain and maintain the
NAAQS as part of its infrastructure SIPs. The language from the opinion
which the commenter quotes does not interpret but rather merely
describes section 110(a)(2)(A). The commenters do not raise any
concerns about whether the measures relied on by the state in the
infrastructure SIP are ``emissions

limitations,'' thus, the decision in this case has no bearing here.
    In Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co., 666 F.3d 1174, the court reviewed a
Federal implementation plan that EPA promulgated after a long history
of the state failing to submit an adequate SIP. The court cited
generally to sections 107 and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA for the
proposition that SIPs should assure attainment and maintenance of NAAQS
through emission limitations, but this language was not part of the
court's holding in the case.
    The commenter suggests that Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation,
540 U.S. 461, stands for the proposition that the 1990 CAA Amendments
do not alter how courts interpret section 110. This claim is
inaccurate. Rather, the court quoted section 110(a)(2)(A), which, as
noted previously, differs from the pre-1990 version of that provision
and the court makes no mention of the changed language. Furthermore,
the commenter also quotes the court's statement that ``SIPs must
include certain measures Congress specified'' but that statement
specifically referenced the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C), which
requires an enforcement program and a program for the regulation of the
modification and construction of new sources. Notably, at issue in that
case was the state's ``new source'' permitting program, not its
infrastructure SIP.
    Two of the cases the commenter cites, Mich. Dept. of Envtl.
Quality, 230 F.3d 181, and Hall, 273 F.3d 1146, interpret the provision
of CAA section 110(l) governing ``revisions'' to plans, and not the
initial plan submission requirement under section 110(a)(2) for a new
or revised NAAQS, such as the infrastructure SIP at issue in this
instance. In those cases, the courts cited to section 110(a)(2)(A)
solely for the purpose of providing a brief background of the CAA.
    Comment 6: The commenter contends that EPA cannot approve the
section 110(a)(2)(A) portion of Michigan's 2008 ozone infrastructure
SIP revision because an infrastructure SIP should include enforceable
emission limits to prevent NAAQS violations in areas not designated
nonattainment. Specifically, the commenter cited air monitoring reports
for Allegan, Berrien, and Muskegon Counties indicating violations of
the NAAQS based on 2010-2012, 2011-2013, and 2012-2014 design values.
The commenter alleges that these violations demonstrate that the
infrastructure SIP fails to ensure that air pollution levels meet or
are below the level of the NAAQS and thus the infrastructure SIP must
be disapproved. The commenter noted that the design values for the
monitors in Allegan and Muskegon Counties have exceeded the 2008 ozone
standard for every three year period since 2001-2003, with the
exception of 2008-2010. The commenter also notes that the EPA denied
the Sierra Club's petition to redesignate all areas violating the 2008
ozone standard based on 2012 data. The commenter contends that, as a
result of the denial of the petition, the areas mentioned above do not
have any requirements associated with nonattainment areas.
    Furthermore, the commenter suggests that there are available
controls for the state to adopt for reducing NOX, a
precursor to ozone. The commenter also contends that EPA should have
conducted an analysis to determine whether the SIP revision would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, as
required by CAA section 110(l).
    Response 6: We disagree with the commenter that infrastructure SIPs
must include detailed attainment and maintenance plans for all areas of
the state and must be disapproved if air quality data that became
available late in the process or after the SIP was due and submitted
changes the status of areas within the state. We believe that section
110(a)(2)(A) is reasonably interpreted to require states to submit SIPs
that reflect the first step in their planning for attaining and
maintaining a new or revised NAAQS, and that contain enforceable
control measures and a demonstration that the state has the available
tools and authority to develop and implement plans to attain and
maintain the NAAQS.
    The suggestion that the infrastructure SIP must include measures
addressing violations of the standard that did not occur until shortly
before or even after the SIP was due and submitted cannot be supported.
The CAA provides states with three years to develop infrastructure SIPs
and states cannot reasonably be expected to address the annual change
in an area's design value for each year over that period. Moreover, the
CAA recognizes and has provisions to address changes in air quality
over time, such as an area slipping from attainment to nonattainment or
changing from nonattainment to attainment. These include provisions
providing for redesignation in section 107(d) and provisions in section
110(k)(5) allowing EPA to call on a state to revise its SIP, as
appropriate.
    We do not believe that section 110(a)(2)(A) requires detailed
planning SIPs demonstrating either attainment or maintenance for
specific geographic areas of the state. The infrastructure SIP is
triggered by promulgation of the NAAQS, not designation. Moreover,
infrastructure SIPs are due three years following promulgation of the
NAAQS and designations are not due until two years (or in some cases
three years) following promulgation of the NAAQS. Thus, during a
significant portion of the period that the state has available for
developing the infrastructure SIP, it does not know what the
designation will be for individual areas of the state.\1\ In light of
the structure of the CAA, EPA's long-standing position regarding
infrastructure SIPs is that they are general planning SIPs to ensure
that the state has adequate resources and authority to implement a
NAAQS in general throughout the state, and not detailed attainment and
maintenance plans for each individual area of the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While it is true that there may be some monitors within a
state with values so high as to make a nonattainment designation of
the county with that monitor almost a certainty, the geographic
boundaries of the nonattainment area associated with that monitor
would not be known until EPA issues final designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all of the above reasons, we disagree with the commenter that
EPA must disapprove an infrastructure SIP revision if there are
monitored violations of the standard in the state and the section
110(a)(2)(A) revision does not have detailed plans for demonstrating
how the state will bring that area into attainment. Rather, EPA
believes that the proper inquiry when EPA is acting on a submittal is
whether the state has met the basic structural SIP requirements.
    Moreover, Michigan's SIP contains existing emission reduction
measures that control emissions of VOCs and NOX found in
Michigan Administrative Code sections R 336.1601 through R 336.1661 and
R 336.1701 through R 336.1710 for VOCs and sections R 336.1801 through
R 336.1834 for NOX. Michigan's SIP revision reflects several
provisions that can lead to reductions in ground level ozone and its
precursors. The Michigan SIP relies on measures and programs used to
implement previous ozone NAAQS. Because there is no substantive
difference between the previous ozone NAAQS and the more recent ozone
NAAQS, other than the level of the standard, the provisions relied on
by Michigan will provide benefits for the new NAAQS; in other words,
the measures reduce overall ground-level ozone and its precursors and
are not limited to reducing ozone levels to meet one specific NAAQS.
    The commenters assertion that CAA section 110(l) requirements
should

apply are incorrect, because the infrastructure SIP does not approve
any new rules or rule modifications and therefore by itself does not
have any effect on emissions of the relevant pollutants. Rather,
approving Michigan's infrastructure SIP revision is simply affirming
that Michigan has sufficient authority to take the types of actions
required by the CAA in order to bring such areas back into attainment
and implement the current NAAQS. The commenter has not provided any
information to demonstrate that emissions will be affected by the
infrastructure SIP submission.
    The denial of the redesignation petition also is not relevant to
Michigan's infrastructure SIP because as mentioned above, the
designation process and infrastructure submittals are separable actions
on completely different timelines and infrastructure requirements are
the same regardless of the designation status of the area.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed in our June 24, 2015, proposed rulemaking
and the responses to comments, above, EPA is taking final action to
approve Michigan's infrastructure SIP for the 2008 ozone, 2010
NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS as
proposed.\2\ In the June 24, 2015, rulemaking, EPA also proposed
approval for Michigan's CAA section 128 submittal. EPA finalized this
approval in separate rulemaking on August 3, 2015 (see 80 FR 52399).
Our final actions, by element of section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are
contained in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As stated previously, EPA will take later, separate action
on portions of Michigan's 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010
SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 infrastructure SIP
submittals including the portions of the SIP submittals addressing
the visibility portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS submittals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Element                           2008 Ozone     2010 NO2      2010 SO2     2012 PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)--Emission limits and other control measures.........            A             A             A             A
(B)--Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.........            A             A             A             A
(C)1--Program for enforcement of control measures.......            A             A             A             A
(C)2--PSD...............................................            A             A             A             A
(D)1--I Prong 1: Interstate transport--significant                 NA             A            NA            NA
 contribution...........................................
(D)2--I Prong 2: Interstate transport--interfere with              NA             A            NA            NA
 maintenance............................................
(D)3--II Prong 3: Interstate transport--prevention of               A             A             A             A
 significant deterioration..............................
(D)4--II Prong 4: Interstate transport--protect                    NA            NA            NA            NA
 visibility.............................................
(D)5--Interstate and international pollution abatement..            A             A             A             A
(E)1--Adequate resources................................            A             A             A             A
(E)2--State board requirements..........................            A             A             A             A
(F)--Stationary source monitoring system................            A             A             A             A
(G)--Emergency power....................................            A             A             A             A
(H)--Future SIP revisions...............................            A             A             A             A
(I)--Nonattainment planning requirements of part D......            +             +             +             +
(J)1--Consultation with government officials............            A             A             A             A
(J)2--Public notification...............................            A             A             A             A
(J)3--PSD...............................................            A             A             A             A
(J)4--Visibility protection.............................            +             +             +             +
(K)--Air quality modeling/data..........................            A             A             A             A
(L)--Permitting fees....................................            A             A             A             A
(M)--Consultation and participation by affected local               A             A             A             A
 entities...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the above table, the key is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.................................  Approve.
NA................................  No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
+.................................  Not Germaine to Infrastructure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose

substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 December 14, 2015. 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 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 23, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding
entries at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,'' ``Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) NAAQS,'' ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS,'' and
``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                       EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable          State
   Name of nonregulatory SIP         geographic or       submittal    EPA approval date          Comments
           provision               nonattainment area       date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide............    7/10/2014  10/13/2015,         This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                          [insert Federal     the following CAA
 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.                                            Register            elements:
                                                                      citation].          110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We are
                                                                                not taking action on
                                                                                (D)(i)(I) and the
                                                                                visibility portion of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II).
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide............    7/10/2014  10/13/2015,         This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                          [insert Federal     the following CAA
 for the 2010 nitrogen dioxide                                        Register            elements:
 (NO2) NAAQS.                                                         citation].          110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We are
                                                                                not taking action on
                                                                                the visibility portion
                                                                                of (D)(i)(II).
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide............    7/10/2014  10/13/2015,         This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                          [insert Federal     the following CAA
 for the 2008 sulfur dioxide                                          Register            elements:
 (SO2) NAAQS.                                                         citation].          110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We are
                                                                                not taking action on
                                                                                (D)(i)(I) and the
                                                                                visibility portion of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II).
Section 110(a)(2)                Statewide............    7/10/2014  10/13/2015,         This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                                          [insert Federal     the following CAA
 for the 2012 particulate                                             Register            elements:
 matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.                                                citation].          110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D), (E), (F),
                                                                                (G), (H), (J), (K),
                                                                                (L), and (M). We are
                                                                                not taking action on
                                                                                (D)(i)(I) and the
                                                                                visibility portion of
                                                                                (D)(i)(II).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-25839 Filed 10-9-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 11293]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05714]

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

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: RP19-419-002.
    Applicants: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Pre-Arranged/Pre-Agreed (Petition for Approval of
Settlement) Filing, et al. of Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company under
RP19-419.
    Filed Date: 3/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190315-5273.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/27/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-784-001.
    Applicants: Arlington Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Arlington Storage Company, LLC.--
Filing of Replacement eTariff Section to be effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190318-5081.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-843-000.
    Applicants: Southern LNG Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Ship Loading Service Compliance
Filing to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 3/18/19.
    Accession Number: 20190318-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-844-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Tariff Provision of Texas Gas
Transmission, LLC. under RP19-844.
    Filed Date: 3/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190319-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/25/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-845-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing 2019 Annual Penalty Revenue
Crediting Report.
    Filed Date: 3/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190319-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-846-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing NAESB Compliance Filing--Order No.
587-Y to be effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190319-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-847-000.
    Applicants: PGPipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing PGPipeline LLC. NAESB Compliance
Filing to be effective 8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190319-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-848-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non Conforming Negotiated Rate
Agreements Update (WPX Mar 19) to be effective 3/19/2019.
    Filed Date: 3/19/19.
    Accession Number: 20190319-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/1/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 20, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05714 Filed 3-25-19.; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 14103]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06973]

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

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: RP19-51-003.
    Applicants: Bear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Bear Creek Cost and Revenue Study
Compliance Filing in RP19-51.
    Filed Date: 4/1/19.
    Accession Number: 20190401-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1029-000.
    Applicants: American Midstream (AlaTenn), LLC.
    Description: Filing Withdrawal: Order 587-Y Withdrawal.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5178.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1030-000.
    Applicants: American Midstream (Midla), LLC.
    Description: Filing Withdrawal: Order 587-Y Withdrawal.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1031-000.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Filing Withdrawal: Order 587-Y Withdrawal.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5180.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1032-000.
    Applicants: High Point Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Filing Withdrawal: Order 587-Y Withdrawal.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1033-000.
    Applicants: Trans-Union Interstate Pipeline, L.P.
    Description: Filing Withdrawal: Order 587-Y Withdrawal.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1098-000.
    Applicants: Trunkline Gas Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Definitions Filing to be
effective 6/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5012.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1099-000.
    Applicants: Rover Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Summary of Negotiated Rate
Capacity Release Agreements on 4-2-19 to be effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5026.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1101-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing Stratton Ridge (CP17-56) In-Service
Compliance Filing to be effective 6/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1102-000.
    Applicants: Empire Pipeline, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Rep Name Change
(Empire) to be effective 5/2/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1103-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Rep Name Change
(Supply) to be effective 5/2/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5170.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1104-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: List of Non-Conforming Service
Agreements (St. James, ASR, and Turnback) to be effective 5/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-995-001.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Docket No. RP19-995-000
to be effective 4/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/2/19.
    Accession Number: 20190402-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/15/19.

    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: April 3, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-06973 Filed 4-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24840-24843]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0190]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Crowley Barge 750-2, Bayou Casotte, Pascagoula, MS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
the specified waters of Bayou Casotte, Pascagoula, Mississippi. This
action is necessary for the protection of persons and vessels on
navigable waters during the launch of the Crowley Barge 750-2,
particularly small craft in the area that risk being swamped. Entry
into, transiting or anchoring in this zone is prohibited to all
vessels, mariners, and persons unless specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Mobile or a designated representative.

DATES: Effective Date: this rule is effective in the CFR from April 26,
2012 until 11:59 p.m. April 30, 2012. This rule is effective with
actual notice for purposes of enforcement beginning 12:01 a.m. April
22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0190 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0190 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Mobile (spw), Building 102, Brookley Complex
South Broad Street Mobile, AL 36615, between 8:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email LT Lenell J. Carson, Coast Guard Sector
Mobile, Waterways Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because there is insufficient time to publish
a NPRM. The Coast Guard received notification on March 28, 2012 of VT-
Halter Pascagoula's intentions to launch the Crowley Barge 750-2 on
April 22, 2012. Publishing a NPRM is impracticable because it would
unnecessarily delay the required safety zone's effective date. The
safety zone is needed to protect persons and vessels from safety
hazards associated with the launching of the Crowley Barge 750-2.
Additionally, delaying the safety zone for the NPRM process would
unnecessarily interfere with launching the barge and its possible
commercial and contractual obligations.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard received
notification on March 28, 2012 of VT-Halter Pascagoula's intentions to
launch the Crowley Barge 750-2 on April 22, 2012. This rule is
temporary and will only be enforced for a short duration while the
vessel is being launched. Delaying the effective date would be
impracticable because immediate action is needed to protect persons and
vessels from safety hazards associated with the launching of the
Crowley Barge 750-2. Additionally, delaying the safety zone for the
NPRM process would unnecessarily interfere with launching the barge and
its possible commercial and contractual obligations.

Basis and Purpose

    VT-Halter Pascagoula is a ship yard and repair facility located on
Bayou Casotte in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The launching of vessels from
this facility creates a 3' launch wave that will propagate eastward
across the north turning basin of Bayou Casotte Harbor. This wave poses
significant safety hazards to vessels, particularly small craft in the
area that could potentially be swamped. The Pascagoula Port Authority
will clear all vessels from berths north of their public terminal
warehouse G and H due to the hazards associated with this wave. The
COTP Mobile is establishing a temporary safety zone for a portion of
Bayou Casotte, Pascagoula, Mississippi to protect persons and vessels
on navigable waters during the launching of the Crowley Barge 750-2.
    The COTP anticipates minimal impact on vessel traffic due to this
regulation. However, this safety zone is deemed necessary for the
protection of life and property within the COTP Mobile zone.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for a
portion of Bayou Casotte, to include all waters between a southern
boundary represented by positions, 30[deg]20'42.3'' N,
088[deg]30'26.0'' W and 30[deg]20'42.3'' N, 088[deg]30'33.0'' W and a
northern boundary represented by positions, 30[deg]21'06.85'' N,
088[deg]30'29.36'' W and 30[deg]21'09.15'' N, 088[deg]30'24.56'' W.
This temporary rule will protect the safety of life and property in
this area. Entry into, transiting or anchoring in this zone is
prohibited to all vessels, mariners, and persons unless specifically
authorized by the COTP Mobile or a designated representative. The COTP
may be contacted by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The COTP Mobile or a designated representative will inform the
public through broadcast notice to mariners of changes in the effective
period for the safety zone. This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m.
April 22, 2012 through 11:59 p.m. April 30, 2012. Exact enforcement
date and times will be broadcasted via a Safety Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under that those Orders.
    The temporary safety zone listed in this rule will restrict vessel
traffic from entering, transiting, or anchoring within a small portion
of Bayou Casotte Harbor, Pascagoula, Mississippi. The effect of this
regulation will not be significant for several reasons: (1) This rule
will only affect vessel traffic for a short duration; (2) vessels may
request permission from the COTP to transit through the safety zone;
and (3) the impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal.
Notifications to the marine community will be published in the local
notice to mariners and a broadcast notice to mariners. These
notifications will allow the public to plan operations around the
affected area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. This rule will affect the
following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the affected
portions of Bayou Casotte Harbor, Pascagoula, Mississippi. This safety
zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities for the following reasons. The zone is limited
in size, is of short duration and vessel traffic may request permission
from the COTP Mobile or a designated representative to enter or transit
through the zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves safety for the public
and environment and is not expected to result in any significant
adverse environmental impact as described in NEPA. An environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination will be
made available as directed under the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0190 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0190  Safety Zone; Bayou Casotte; Pascagoula, MS.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: a
portion of Bayou Casotte, to include all waters between a southern
boundary represented by positions, 30[deg]20[min]42.3[sec] N,
088[deg]30[min]26.0[sec] W and 30[deg]20[min]42.3[sec] N,
088[deg]30[min]33.0[sec] W and a northern boundary represented by
positions, 30[deg]21[min]06.85[sec] N, 088[deg]30[min]29.36[sec] W and
30[deg]21[min]09.15[sec] N, 088[deg]30[min]24.56[sec] W.
    (b) Enforcement. This rule will be effective from 12:01 a.m. April
22, 2012 through 11:59 p.m. April 30, 2012. Exact enforcement date and
times will be broadcasted via a Safety Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Mobile or a designated
representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or passage through
the zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port Mobile or
a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channels
16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or designated
representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The Captain of the Port or a
designated representative will inform the public through broadcast
notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as
well as any changes in the planned schedule.

    Dated: April 4, 2012.
D.J. Rose,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Mobile.
[FR Doc. 2012-10215 Filed 4-24-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P