[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45415-45416]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16308]

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

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:

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1025-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: Pre-Arranged/Pre-Agreed (Settlement Agreement) Filing
of National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation under RP20-1025.
    Filed Date: 7/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200716-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1026-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per
154.204: 20200715 Minimum Level of

MDQ to be effective 8/16/2020 under RP20-1026.
    Filed Date: 7/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200716-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1029-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Compliance filing Rate Schedules GSS and LSS DETI Flow
Thru Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200721-5022.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1030-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: New Service Agreement Entergy
to be effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200721-5049.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1031-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update Non-Conforming List
(Entergy) on 7-21-20 to be effective 8/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200721-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-1032-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Supply Lateral Transportation
Filing to be effective 8/21/2020.
    Filed Date: 7/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200721-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by 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: July 22, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-16308 Filed 7-27-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 73 (Wednesday, April 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20994-20995]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07926]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1770-003.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Compliance filing: ISO-NE & NEPOOL; Tariff
Modifications to Reflect Rejection of Economic Life Rev to be effective
8/10/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1924-002.
    Applicants: Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Errata to Compliance Filing to
Order No. 845 Compliance Filing-Amendments to be effective 5/22/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1925-002.
    Applicants: Black Hills Colorado Electric, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Errata to Compliance Filing to
Order No. 845 Compliance Filing-Amendments to be effective 5/22/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1926-002
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Errata to Filing to Order No. 845
Compliance Filing-Amendments to be effective 5/22/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1045-001.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Service Agreement No.
608 to be effective 6/8/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1519-000.
    Applicants: Little Bear Solar 4, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
Shared Gen-Tie Facilities Common Ownership Agreement to be effective 4/
9/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1520-000.
    Applicants: Neighborhood Sun Benefit Corp.
    Description: Compliance filing: Refile Baseline Tariff Neighborhood
Sun Tariff to be effective 4/8/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1521-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of ISA, SA
No. 4598, Queue No. AA1-047 re: Suspension to be effective 1/12/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1522-000.
    Applicants: Little Bear Solar 5, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
Shared Gen-Tie Facilities Common Ownership Agreement to be effective 4/
9/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1523-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2881R10 City of Chanute, KS
NITSA NOA to be effective 4/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1524-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., New York
Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Joint 205 re: NYISO & Con
Edison--LGIA SA2520--East River 1 to be effective 3/26/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1525-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Landfill Gas, LLC.
    Description: Waiver Request of Eastern Landfill Gas, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1526-000
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Joint 205 re: LGIA SA2521
between NYISO & Consolidated Edison--East River 2 to be effective 3/26/
2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1527-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Waiver Request of Mississippi Power Company.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1528-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 5612;
Queue No. AF1-185 to be effective 3/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1529-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended GIA & DSA Tehachapi
Plains Wind, LLC, Windland Refresh 2 SA Nos. 812-813 to be effective 6/
9/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1530-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 32,
Service Schedule F to be effective 6/9/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1531-000
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 5621;
Queue No. AF1-195 to be effective 3/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1532-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 5622;
Queue No. AF1-196 to be effective 3/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/9/20.
    Accession Number: 20200409-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC20-5-000.
    Applicants: Riverstone Holdings LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Riverstone Holdings LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5191.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: FC20-6-000.
    Applicants: Riverstone Holdings LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Riverstone Holdings LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: FC20-7-000.
    Applicants: Riverstone Holdings LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Riverstone Holdings LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: FC20-8-000.
    Applicants: Riverstone Holdings LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Riverstone Holdings LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5194.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    Docket Numbers: FC20-9-000.
    Applicants: Riverstone Holdings LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of Riverstone Holdings LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/8/20.
    Accession Number: 20200408-5195.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/29/20.

    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: April 9, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07926 Filed 4-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


OPERATIONAL STATUS AGREEMENT UNDER SECTION 18(e) OF THE

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT OF 1970

Draft – as of July 19, 2012

This procedural agreement implements the Federal Register Notice (XXXX)
which will announce the temporary suspension of Hawaii’s 18(e) status,
and is entered into between the Regional Administrator for OSHA, Region
9, and Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations of
the State of Hawaii as the State Designee, in response to a request for
assistance from Department of Labor and Industrial Relations of the
State of Hawaii (DLIR) to assure occupational safety and health
protection to workers due to an insufficient number of trained safety
and health personnel employed.  This agreement does not terminate
Federal approval of the Hawaii State Plan and does not affect the legal
authority of Hawaii to carry on enforcement activities under the State
Plan.  The Hawaii State Plan, Chapter 396 Hawaii Revised Statutes, and
all its regulations remain in effect.

This agreement delineates continuing and new Federal enforcement
authority in the State of Hawaii and specifies areas of State authority
during the period of temporary suspension.

Federal responsibility under the Act will continue to be exercised with
regard to enforcement of Federal OSHA requirements:

Federal OSHA retains its authority relative to safety and health in
private sector maritime activities and will continue to enforce all
provisions of the Act, rules or orders, and all Federal standards,
current or future, specifically directed to maritime employment (29 CFR
Part 1915, shipyard employment; Part 1917, marine terminals; Part 1918,
longshoring; Part 1919, gear certification) as well as provisions of
general industry and construction standards (29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926)
appropriate to hazards found in these employments;

Promulgated under the Act subsequent to the agreement where necessary to
protect employers as in the case of emergency temporary standards
promulgated under section 6(c) of the Act (29 U.S.C. 655(c), until such
time as Hawaii shall have promulgated comparable standards in accordance
with Subpart C of 29 CFR Part 1953;

Over Federal government employers and workers and contractors or
subcontractors on any Federal establishment where the land is determined
to be exclusive Federal jurisdiction;

Over private sector employers within the secured borders of all military
installations in where access is controlled; and

Over the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), including USPS workers, and
contract workers and contractor-operated facilities engaged in USPS mail
operations.

Federal enforcement authority under Section 18 of the Act may be
exercised with regard to Federal occupational safety and health
requirements over Agriculture and General Industries, excluding
Transportation (NAICS 48) and Warehousing (NAICS 49). Potential
violations where the employer is in compliance with Federal regulations,
but not with more stringent HIOSH regulations, may be referred to the
Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health division (HIOSH).

HIOSH will retain enforcement authority in any case commenced before the
date of the Final Rule published in the Federal Register modifying the
status of the Hawaii State Plan to 18(b) in order to enforce standards
under the Plan.  Additionally, it will exercise inspection and
enforcement authority over:

Construction industry, Transportation (NAICS 48) and Warehousing (NAICS
49) under its Plan;

State and Local government as an employer;

Complaints of alleged violations of Section 396-8(e) of the Hawaii
Revised Statutes (employment discrimination); and

Referrals from Federal OSHA to HIOSH.

If there arises any case or circumstance in which authority is not
clearly defined in this agreement, the Director of the Department of
Labor and Industrial Relations of the State of Hawaii as the State
Designee and the Regional Administrator, or their designated
representatives, will resolve the issue.  While the issue is being
resolved about who has authority (e.g., where quick response is required
such as a Fatality, Catastrophe or Significant Event) OSHA shall respond
to the situation.

In addition to monitoring visits provided for under 18(f) of the OSH
Act, Federal OSHA may accompany HIOSH on enforcement activities for
purposes of technical assistance and training.  Additionally, HIOSH may
accompany Federal OSHA on enforcement activities for training purposes.

The attached addendum specifies responsibilities of each party in
support of the implementation of this agreement.

This agreement is subject to revision or termination by mutual agreement
between the Director of the Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial
Relations and the Regional Administrator for OSHA, Region 9; or by
either party upon 30 days written notice to the other party; or when
either the results of evaluation or monitoring reveal that State
operations are at least as effective as the Federal program and
responsibilities shall be returned to the State.

__________________________________ 			_____________

Dwight Takamine, Director					Date

Department of Labor and Industrial Relations

__________________________________			_____________

Ken Nishiyama Atha, Regional Administrator		Date

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Region 9


Appendix V to 40 CFR Part 51 -- Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions
                          Technical Support Document
                                   Criterion
                                    Status
(a) Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan.
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
(b) Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected areas(s).
Affected sources are located throughout the state.  Hamilton County is currently identified as "unclassifiable/attainment" and the remainder of the state is currently identified as "unclassifiable" for the 2012 PM2.5 standard.
(c) Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision.
N/A
(d) The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. For all requests to redesignate an area to attainment for a national primary ambient air quality standard, under section 107 of the Act, a revision must be submitted to provide for the maintenance of the national primary ambient air quality standards for at least 10 years as required by section 175A of the Act.
Included as applicable. (Appendix A)
(e) Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used, justification of model selections, ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.
N/A
(f) Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology.
N/A
(g) Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels.
Included as applicable. (Appendix A)
(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.
Compliance and enforcement strategies are outlined in Appendix A.
(i) Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies, or an explanation of why such justifications are not necessary.
N/A


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37384-37389]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16819]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0079; FRL-9965-81-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Florida; Interstate Transport (Prongs 1 and 2)
for the 2010 1-Hour NO2 Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP),
submitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP),
on February 3, 2017, addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
interstate transport (prongs 1 and 2) infrastructure SIP requirements
for the 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt
and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure SIP.'' Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve
Florida's February 3, 2017, SIP submission addressing prongs 1 and 2,
to ensure that air emissions in the State do not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010
1-hour NO2 NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 11, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2017-0079 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised
NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements
for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that
are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly
established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1)
provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure
SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet
for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established
or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may
vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the
state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's
implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits
the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct
components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that must be addressed
in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit
any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in
another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are
codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit
emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state
(prong 3) and from interfering with measures to protect visibility in
another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.
    Through this proposed action, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's
February 3, 2017, SIP submission addressing prong 1 and prong 2
requirements for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. The other
applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for Florida for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS have been addressed in a separate rulemaking
or will be addressed separately. On March 18, 2015, EPA approved the
portions of Florida's infrastructure SIP regarding the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) permitting requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of D(i), and (J) for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS. See 80 FR 14019. On November 23, 2016, EPA
approved the portions of Florida's infrastructure SIP regarding
sections 110(a)(2)(A), prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii), sections 110(a)(2)(E)-(H), and sections 110(a)(2)(K)-
(M). See 81 FR 84479. The portion of Florida's infrastructure SIP
related to the ambient air quality monitoring and data system
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) will be acted on in a separate
action. A brief background regarding the 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS is provided later in this preamble.
    On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2

at a level of 100 parts per billion, based on a 3-year average of the
98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). This NAAQS is
designed to protect against exposure to the entire group of nitrogen
oxides (NOX). NO2 is the component of greatest
concern and is used as the indicator for the larger group of
NOX. Emissions that lead to the formation of NO2
generally also lead to the formation of other NOX.
Therefore, control measures that reduce NO2 can generally be
expected to reduce population exposures to all gaseous NOX
which may have the co-benefit of reducing the formation of ozone and
fine particles both of which pose significant public health threats.
    States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for
the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22,
2013. For comprehensive information on 2010 1-hour NO2
NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register at 75 FR 6474, February 9,
2010.

II. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of 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 ``each such
plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (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 section 169A of the CAA, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\2\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162 at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action.
Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect
to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined
action.\4\ Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action
on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.

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

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B)
could be very different for different pollutants, because the content
and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this
element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a
minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions
required by part D to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of section
110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission
limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air
agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that
attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to
meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program required in part
C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for
which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D
planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP
submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not
others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need
not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's
implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of Section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR)
pollutants, including Greenhouse Gases. By contrast, structural PSD
program requirements do not include provisions that are not required
under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the fine

particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter
optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in
the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program
addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of
acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think
it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a
state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing
SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's
regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; \10\ (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform). Thus, EPA believes that it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\11\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA's
interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of
affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See ``State
Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs;
Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend
Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup,
Shutdown and Malfunction,'' 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a
result, EPA's 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no longer represents the
EPA's view concerning the validity of affirmative defense
provisions, in light of the requirements of section 113 and section
304.
    \11\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption or affirmative defense for
excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate
that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring
review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against
all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and
mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\12\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\13\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \13\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it
had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62
FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \14\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

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

III. What are the Prong 1 and Prong 2 requirements?

    For each new NAAQS, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires
each state to submit a SIP revision that contains adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions activity in the state from contributing
significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in any downwind state. EPA sometimes refers to these requirements
as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance), or conjointly as the ``good neighbor''
provision of the CAA.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Florida addressed Prongs 1 and 2?

    In Florida's February 3, 2017, SIP revision, the State concluded
that its SIP adequately addresses Prongs 1 and 2 with respect to the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Florida provides the following
reasons for its determination: (1) The SIP contains state regulations
that directly or indirectly control NOX emissions; (2) all
areas in the United States are designated as unclassifiable/attainment
for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS; (3) maximum 1-hour
NO2 concentrations in states near Florida (Alabama, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina) are below the 2010
standard; (4) monitored design values for NO2 in the State
are well below the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS and are trending
downward; and (5) total NOX emissions in the State are also
trending downward. EPA preliminarily agrees with the State's conclusion
based on the rationale discussed later in this preamble.
    First, Florida notes that SIP-approved portions of the following
state rules directly or indirectly control NOX emissions:
Chapter 62-204, F.A.C. (Air Pollution Control--General Provisions);
Chapter 62-210, F.A.C. (Stationary Sources--General Requirements);
Chapter 62-212, F.A.C. (Stationary Sources--Preconstruction Review);
Chapter 62-296, F.A.C. (Stationary Sources--Emission Standards); and
Chapter 62-297, F.A.C. (Stationary Sources--Emissions Monitoring). The
SIP-approved portions of Chapters 62-204, 62-210, and 62-212, F.A.C.
require any new major source or major modification to go through PSD or
NNSR permitting in order to demonstrate that emissions will not cause
or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment in Florida
or any other state and provide an analysis of additional impacts of the
source or modification. All new or modified major sources of
NOX emissions in attainment or unclassifiable areas will
apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to control
NOX emissions. Chapter 62-296 sets emission limiting
standards and compliance requirements for stationary sources, including
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements.
    Second, there are no designated nonattainment areas for the 2010 1-
hour NO2 NAAQS. On February 17, 2012 (77 FR 9532), EPA
designated the entire country as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the
2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, stating that ``available information
does not indicate that the air quality in these areas exceeds the 2010
1-hour NO2 NAAQS.''
    Third, maximum 1-hour NO2 concentrations in surrounding
states (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina)
are approximately one half of the 2010 standard.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA verified the design values for the surrounding states
for the 2013-2015 time period. This information is available at
https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values. Design
values are computed and published annually by EPA's Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards and reviewed in conjunction with the
EPA Regional Offices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, according to the 1-hour NO2 monitoring data from
2000-2015 provided in the submittal,\16\ the monitored design values
for NO2 in the State were all well below the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS of 100 ppb during this time period and have
declined by approximately 43 percent since 2000. The design values have
been below 40 ppb since 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This information was obtained from Florida's ambient air
quality monitoring network. On July 24, 2017, EPA approved the
NO2 portion of Florida's latest monitoring network plan
revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fifth, NOX emissions data provided in the submittal
(including data from Industrial, Nonpoint, On-Road, and Non-Road
Sources\17\) from 2000-2014 shows a 52 percent decrease in total
NOX emissions from these combined sources (from
approximately 1.2 million tons in 2000 to less than 600,000 tons in
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Industrial source emission data are from the Florida
facility Annual Operating Report submissions; Mobile on-road source
emissions are estimated from Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES2014a) model; and Nonpoint and non-road emissions data are
from the EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all the reasons discussed previously, EPA has preliminarily
determined that Florida does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS in any other state and that Florida's SIP includes
adequate provisions to prevent emissions sources within the State from
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of this standard in any other state.

V. Proposed Action

    As described earlier, EPA is proposing to approve Florida's
February 3, 2017, SIP revision addressing prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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).
    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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: July 26, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-16819 Filed 8-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 59778]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20984]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP20-1195-000]

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on September 15, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2020), Rockies Express
Pipeline LLC (Rockies Express) filed a petition for a declaratory order
seeking a Commission order holding that if Gulfport Energy Corporation
(Gulfport) files for bankruptcy, the Commission will have concurrent
jurisdiction, under Sections 4 and 5 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C.
717c and 717d (2018), with U.S. Bankruptcy Courts with respect to
Rockies Express' three negotiated rate, anchor shipper, firm
transportation service agreements with Gulfport (Gulfport TSAs). The
petition also requests that the Commission exercise that jurisdiction
to establish an adjudicative proceeding to affirm that continued
performance under the Gulfport TSAs does not seriously harm the public
interest and that any party wishing to abrogate the Gulfport TSAs
carries the burden of establishing that the public interest mandates
such abrogation, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene, or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar
pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 21, 2020.

    Dated: September 16, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20984 Filed 9-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 52322]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21339]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9723-5]

McClellan Air Force Base Superfund Site Proposed Notice of
Administrative Order on Consent

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a proposed administrative order on
consent concerning portions of the McClellan Air Force Base Superfund
Site (``Site'') in McClellan, California has been negotiated by the
Agency and the Respondent, McClellan Business Park, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company. The proposed administrative order on consent
concerns cleanup of portions of the Site pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (``CERCLA'').
Pursuant to a Federal Facilities Agreement (``FFA''), the U.S. Air
Force is performing the CERCLA response actions for the Site; however,
the FFA was amended to suspend the obligations of the Air Force to
conduct the response actions undertaken by the Respondent. The Air
Force has prepared a Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer
(``FOSET''), which has been subject to a public comment period. The Air
Force submitted the FOSET to the Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA''), Region 9, and the State of California for their approval and
upon approval of the FOSET, the Air Force will transfer portions of the
Site to the County of Sacramento, which will then transfer those
portions to the Respondent. The Air Force and the County of Sacramento
have entered into an Environmental Services Cooperative Agreement,
which requires the County of Sacramento to perform certain CERCLA
response actions on the transferred portions of the Site, using funds
supplied by the Air Force. The County of Sacramento has contracted with
Respondent to conduct those CERCLA response actions. The proposed
administrative order on consent would require the Respondent to prepare
and perform removal actions, one or more remedial investigations and
feasibility studies and one or more remedial designs and remedial
actions for certain contaminants present on the transferred portions of
the Site, under the oversight of EPA and the State of California. The
administrative order on consent also commits the Respondent to
reimburse direct and indirect future response costs incurred by EPA in
connection with actions conducted under CERCLA at the transferred
portions of the Site.
    For thirty (30) calendar days following the date of publication of
this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the proposed
administrative order on consent. If requested prior to the expiration
of this public comment period, EPA will provide an opportunity for a
public meeting in the affected area. EPA's response to any comments
received will be available for public inspection at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 28, 2012.
    Availability: The proposed administrative order on consent may be
obtained from Barbara Maco, Project Manager telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Comments regarding the proposed administrative order on consent should
be addressed to Thelma Estrada (ORC-3) at United States EPA Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, and should
reference ``FOSET 2 Privatization, McClellan Superfund Site,''
and ``Docket No. 2012-09''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thelma Estrada, Assistant Regional
Counsel (ORC-3), Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 16, 2012.
Jane Diamond,
Director, Superfund Division, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-21339 Filed 8-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 75243-75244]
[DOCID:fr14de06-48]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0624; FRL-8255-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Land Disposal Restrictions No-
Migration Variances (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1353.08, OMB Control
Number 2050-0062

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on December 31,
2006. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. This ICR describes the nature of the information collection and
its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 16,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2006-0624, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our

preferred method), or by mail to: RCRA Docket, Mail Code 5305T, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Vyas, Office of Solid Waste
(Mail Code 5302W), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On August 2, 2006 (71 FR 43735), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2006-0624, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: Land Disposal Restrictions No-Migration Variances (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1353.08, OMB Control No. 2050-0062.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December
31, 2006. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: To receive a variance from the hazardous waste land
disposal prohibitions, owner/operators of hazardous waste storage or
disposal facilities may petition the Environmental Protection Agency to

allow land disposal of a specific restricted waste at a specific site.
The EPA Regional Offices will review the petitions and determine if
they successfully demonstrate ``no migration.'' The applicant must
demonstrate that hazardous wastes can be managed safely in a particular
land disposal unit, so that ``no migration'' of any hazardous
constituents occurs from the unit for as long as the waste remains
hazardous. If EPA grants the variance, the waste is no longer
prohibited from land disposal in that particular unit. If the owner/
operator fails to make this demonstration, or chooses not to petition
for the variance, best demonstrated available technology (BDAT)
requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 must be met before the hazardous wastes
are placed in a land disposal unit.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3,168
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Business.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1.
    Frequency of Response: One-time.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 3,168.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $211,275, which includes $121
annualized capital or O&M costs and $211,154 annual labor costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens.

    Dated: December 7, 2006.
Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-21294 Filed 12-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 41461]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17073]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 206(4)-3; SEC File No. 270-218; OMB Control No. 3235-0242.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for approval of extension of the previously
approved collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 206(4)-3 (17 CFR 275.206(4)-3) under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940, which is entitled ``Cash Payments for Client
Solicitations,'' provides restrictions on cash payments for client
solicitations. The rule requires that an adviser pay all solicitors'
fees pursuant to a written agreement. When an adviser will provide only
impersonal advisory services to the prospective client, the rule
imposes no disclosure requirements. When the solicitor is affiliated
with the adviser and the adviser will provide individualized advisory
services to the prospective client, the solicitor must, at the time of
the solicitation or referral, indicate to the prospective client that
he is affiliated with the adviser. When the solicitor is not affiliated
with the adviser and the adviser will provide individualized advisory
services to the prospective client, the solicitor must, at the time of
the solicitation or referral, provide the prospective client with a
copy of the adviser's brochure and a disclosure document containing
information specified in rule 206(4)-3. Amendments to rule 206(4)-3,
adopted in 2010 in connection with rule 206(4)-5, specify that
solicitation activities involving a government entity, as defined in
rule 206(4)-5, are subject to the additional limitations of rule
206(4)-5. The information rule 206(4)-3 requires is necessary to inform
advisory clients about the nature of the solicitor's financial interest
in the recommendation so the prospective clients may consider the
solicitor's potential bias, and to protect clients against solicitation
activities being carried out in a manner inconsistent with the
adviser's fiduciary duty to clients. Rule 206(4)-3 is applicable to all
Commission registered investment advisers. The Commission believes that
approximately 4,159 of these advisers have cash referral fee
arrangements. The rule requires approximately 7.04 burden hours per
year per adviser and results in a total of approximately 29,279 total
burden hours (7.04 x 4,159) for all advisers.
    The disclosure requirements of rule 206(4)-3 do not require
recordkeeping or record retention. The collections of information
requirements under the rules are mandatory. Information subject to the
disclosure requirements of rule 206(4)-3 is not submitted to the
Commission. The disclosures pursuant to the rule are not kept
confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Please direct
general comments regarding the above information to the following
persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

     Dated: July 9, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17073 Filed 7-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P