81 FR 36496 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 109 (June 7, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 109 (June 7, 2016)
| Page Range | 36496-36501 | |
| FR Document | 2016-13493 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 36496-36501] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-13493] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464; FRL-9947-36-Region 6] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to disapprove the portion of a Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in other states. Disapproval will establish a 2-year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for Louisiana to address the Clean Air Act (CAA) interstate transport requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states, unless we approve a SIP that meets these requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for Louisiana. DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR- 2013-0464, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public [[Page 36497]] docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Sherry Fuerst 214-665- 6454, fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst 214-665-6454, fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665- 7253. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' means the EPA. I. Background On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and secondary 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor'' provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action reviews how the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions, at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) were addressed in an infrastructure SIP submission from Louisiana for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These sub-elements require that each SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to prohibit any emissions activity within the State from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable air quality standard in any other state. Ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is created by chemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOX ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions from electric utilities and industrial facilities, motor vehicles, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOCs. Because ground-level ozone formation increases with temperature and sunlight, ozone levels are generally higher during the summer. Increased temperature also increases emissions of VOCs and can indirectly increase NOX emissions.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706, 75711 (December 3, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to ozone in several past regulatory actions. The NOX SIP Call, promulgated in 1998, addressed the good neighbor provision for the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ The rule required 22 states and the District of Columbia to amend their SIPs and limit NOX emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment. The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated in 2005, addressed both the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) and ozone standards under the good neighbor provision and required SIP revisions in 28 states and the District of Columbia to limit NOX and SO2 emissions that contribute to nonattainment of those standards.\3\ CAIR was remanded to us by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008), modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176. In response to the remand of CAIR, we promulgated the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) on July 6, 2011, to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern \4\ portion of the United States.\5\ With respect to ozone, CSAPR limited ozone season NOX emissions from electric generating units (EGUs). CSAPR addressed interstate transport as to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, but did not address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998). \3\ Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005). \4\ When we discuss the eastern United States we mean the contiguous U.S. states excluding the 11 western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. \5\ Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Louisiana SIP Revision Addressing Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS On June 4, 2013, Louisiana provided us with a SIP submittal addressing CAA section 110(a)(2) ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. This action concerns the portion of the SIP submittal pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement to address the interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We proposed approval on other portions of the State's submittal relating to CAA section 110(a)(2) elements A, B, C, D(i)(II), D(ii), E, F, G, H, J, K, L, and M in a separate action signed on May 18, 2016. In its SIP submittal, Louisiana provided an ``Infrastructure Checklist'' for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and stated that the submittal substantiates that the State has adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the State that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. The checklist states that the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) submitted and we approved CAIR SIPs for both sulfur dioxide and NOX emissions, citing 72 FR 39741 (July 20, 2007) and 72 FR 55064 (September 28, 2007).\6\ The checklist also notes that the controls installed to comply with CAIR are required by State law at Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.905 to be ``used and diligently maintained.'' The checklist also provided narrative on the D.C. Circuit's 2012 decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA which vacated CSAPR and the November 19, 2012, memorandum explaining the continued implementation of CAIR until a replacement rule could be implemented. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ CAIR found that sulfur dioxide and NOX emission limits were needed in Louisiana to address interstate transport of air pollution for the 1997 PM2.5 and 1997 ozone NAAQS (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Louisiana's SIP submittal included a response to comments document which, among other things, summarized and responded to February 15, 2013, comments from us on what was then the State's proposed SIP revision. In our comments on the proposed SIP revision, we noted that the information LDEQ [[Page 36498]] provided was based upon the old 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements and was therefore not sufficient to support a conclusion that the State's ozone emissions do not contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. In its response, Louisiana disagreed, and accordingly chose not to revise its proposed SIP revision or provide any additional support for its conclusions. Instead, Louisiana contended in its response to comments that, ``the information based on the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements is relevant . . . through the CAIR NOX program in that it demonstrates the state's most recent efforts in maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and to alleviate transport pollutants.'' A copy of the Louisiana SIP submittal, which includes our February 15, 2013, comment letter and the State's response to comments, may be accessed online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464. III. The EPA's Evaluation As noted above, we informed Louisiana in our February 15, 2013, comment letter that the information provided in the SIP submittal would not itself be sufficient to conclude that the State has adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from within the State that significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. However, the SIP submittal provided by Louisiana cited the State's approved CAIR SIP as support for its conclusion that the State satisfied its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. First, CAIR was invalidated by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (2008). The D.C. Circuit held, among other things, that the CAIR rule did not ``achieve[] something measureable toward the goal of prohibiting sources within the State from contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in any other State.'' Id. at 908; see also, e.g., id. at 916 (EPA is not exercising its authority to make measureable progress towards the goals of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because the emission budgets were insufficiently related to the statutory mandate). In promulgating CSAPR, we corrected our prior approvals of states' CAIR SIPs, including Louisiana's approved CAIR SIPs, ``to rescind any statements that the SIP submissions either satisfy or relieve the state of the obligation to submit a SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone and/or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or any statements that EPA's approval of the SIP submissions either relieve EPA of the obligation to promulgate a FIP or remove EPA's authority to promulgate a FIP.'' 76 FR 48208, 48220. In reviewing CSAPR, the D.C. Circuit concluded that our correction of the prior CAIR approvals was appropriate, explaining ``when our decision in North Carolina deemed CAIR to be an invalid effort to implement the requirements of the good neighbor provision, that ruling meant that the initial approval of the CAIR SIPs was in error at the time it was done.'' EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 133 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Therefore, the D.C. Circuit has clearly concluded that states cannot rely on CAIR or previously approved CAIR SIPs to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Even if Louisiana could rely on its CAIR SIPs, as we stated in our comment letter, the modeling and rulemaking conducted for both CAIR and CSAPR addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS, not the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS at issue in this action. EPA-approved rules implementing a prior, less stringent NAAQS are not adequate on their own to support a demonstration regarding the impacts of in-state emissions on air quality in other states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\7\ Additionally, although we approved the Louisiana abbreviated SIP implementing the CAIR NOX trading program, neither the states nor the EPA are currently implementing the ozone-season NOX trading program promulgated in CAIR, as it has been replaced by CSAPR. Moreover, although the State cites to a State regulation requiring that already-installed controls be ``used'' and ``maintained,'' the State does not provide any explanation as to whether the sources are subject to specific emissions limitations or how the use of the controls will impact downwind air quality. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Louisiana's citation to our July 20, 2007 action approving Louisiana's CAIR sulfur dioxide SIP revision is particularly inapplicable. 72 FR 39741. Sulfur dioxide is not a precursor or pollutant that contributes to ozone formation, and therefore, the implementation of any control requirements to address sulfur dioxide emissions is irrelevant to our analysis of the State's control requirements to address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, it is no longer appropriate for Louisiana to rely on the D.C. Circuit decision vacating CSAPR as a basis for concluding that its SIP is adequate. Although the D.C. Circuit initially held that states did not have an obligation to make a SIP submission addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until we first quantified a state's emission reduction obligation, see EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7, on April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). The Supreme Court explained that ``nothing in the statute places EPA under an obligation to provide specific metrics to States before they undertake to fulfill their good neighbor obligations.'' Id. at 1601. Because the Louisiana submittal addressed by this action concerns states' interstate transport obligations for a different and more stringent standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), it is not sufficient to merely cite as evidence of compliance that these older programs have been implemented by the states or the EPA.\8\ The submittal lacks any technical analysis evaluating or demonstrating whether emissions in each state impact air quality in other states with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As such, the submittal does not provide us with a basis to agree with the conclusion that the State already has adequate provisions in the SIP to address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Thus, we propose to find that the Louisiana submittal is not adequate as it did not evaluate whether emissions from the State significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ This is particularly true where, as here, Louisiana has failed to include any analysis of the downwind impacts of emissions originating within their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v. EPA, 608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3-4 (D.C. Cir. 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although the Louisiana submittal contains no data or analysis to support their conclusion with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, we recently shared new technical information with states to facilitate efforts to address interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Such technical information provides further support to our determination that Louisiana is projected to significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. We developed this technical information following the same approach used to evaluate interstate transport in CSAPR in order to support the recently proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015) (``CSAPR Update Rule''). In CSAPR, we used detailed air quality analyses to determine whether an eastern state's contribution to [[Page 36499]] downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was, therefore, not considered to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard. In CSAPR, we proposed an air quality screening threshold of one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one percent was appropriate. We evaluated the comments received and ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low threshold because there were important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a higher or lower threshold than one percent, we compiled the contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. Our analysis showed that the one percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states, while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting downwind receptors would be excluded. In addition, we determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one percent threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone even at low levels. We also determined that a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. We determined that a ``0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have a very small impact on those receptors--an indicator that emission controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.'' In the final CSAPR, we determined that one percent was a reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the previous use of a one percent threshold in CAIR. We used a single ``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm. The projected contribution from each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled ozone, and then compared to the one percent threshold. We concluded that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm. We have subsequently proposed to use the same threshold for purposes of evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone standard in the CSAPR Update Rule. In 2015 we (1) provided notice of data availability (NODA) for the updated ozone transport modeling for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for public review and comment (80 FR 46271, August 4, 2015), and (2) proposed the CSAPR Update Rule to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015). The proposed CSAPR Update Rule would further restrict ozone season NOX emissions from EGUs in 23 states, including Louisiana, beginning in the 2017 ozone season. The modeling data released in this NODA was also used to support the proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The moderate area attainment date for the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, we proposed that 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. We used nationwide state- level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting technical support documents have been included in the docket for this SIP action. The modeling data released in the NODA and the CSAPR Update Rule are the most up-to-date information we have developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. As discussed in the CSAPR Update Rule proposal, the air quality modeling (1) identified locations in the U.S. where we expect nonattainment or maintenance problems in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance receptors), and (2) quantified the projected contributions of emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at those receptors in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720-30, December 3, 2015). Consistent with CSAPR, we proposed to use a threshold of one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per billion) to identify linkages between upwind states and downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors. We proposed that eastern states with contributions to a specific receptor that meet or exceed this screening threshold are considered ``linked'' to that receptor and were analyzed further to quantify available emissions reductions necessary to address interstate transport to these receptors. Table 1 is a summary of the air quality modeling results for Louisiana from Tables V.D-1, V.D-2 and V.D-3 of the proposed CSAPR Update Rule.\9\ As the State's downwind contribution to proposed nonattainment and maintenance receptors exceeded the threshold, the analysis for the proposal concluded that Louisiana's emissions significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS [[Page 36500]] in other states. Louisiana's emissions were linked (1) to eastern nonattainment receptors in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston areas of Texas, and (2) to eastern maintenance receptors in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston areas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ 80 FR 75706, 75727-28. Table 1--Louisiana's Largest Contribution to Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas [Proposed CSAPR Update Rule] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Largest downwind Largest downwind Downwind nonattainment Downwind maintenance 2008 Ozone NAAQS Air quality threshold contribution to contribution to receptors located in receptors located in nonattainment maintenance states states -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion or 0.75 ppb.............. 3.09 ppb............. 4.23 ppb............. Wisconsin, Texas...... Texas ppb). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, the most recent technical analysis available to us contradicts Louisiana's conclusion that the SIP contains adequate provisions to address interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone standard. We are thus proposing to disapprove the portion of the Louisiana SIP submittal pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states--i.e., element (D)(i)(I). As explained above, the Louisiana submittal did not provide an adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, our most recent modeling indicates that emissions from Louisiana are in fact projected to significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. IV. Proposed Action We propose to disapprove the portion of a June 4, 2013 Louisiana SIP submittal pertaining to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), disapproval will establish a 2- year deadline for the EPA to promulgate a FIP for Louisiana to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS unless Louisiana submits and we approve a SIP that meets these requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock for Louisiana pursuant to CAA section 179 because this action does not pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection activities. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This proposed action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land, any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that we have reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations We believe the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. This action merely proposes to disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA. [[Page 36501]] List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: May 26, 2016. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6. [FR Doc. 2016-13493 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![36496 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
environmental impact from this PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION (3) The Coast Guard will provide
proposed rule. AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS notice of the regulated area by Marine
Safety Information Bulletins, Local
G. Protest Activities ■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to
The Coast Guard respects the First continues to read as follows: Mariners, and on-scene designated
Amendment rights of protesters. Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 50 U.S.C. representatives.
Protesters are asked to contact the 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, and 160.5; (d) Enforcement period. This rule will
person listed in the FOR FURTHER Department of Homeland Security Delegation be enforced on September 25, 2016 from
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
No. 0170.1. 8:45 a.m. until 3:45 p.m.
coordinate protest activities so that your ■ 2. Add a temporary § 165.T07–0241 Dated: May 31, 2016.
message can be received without under the undesignated center heading G.L. Tomasulo,
jeopardizing the safety or security of Seventh Coast Guard District to read as Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
people, places, or vessels. follows: Port Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2016–13325 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am]
V. Public Participation and Request for § 100.T07–0241 Safety Zone; Swim Around
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
Comments Charleston, Charleston, SC.
(a) Regulated area. The following
We view public participation as
regulated area is a moving safety zone:
essential to effective rulemaking, and ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
All waters 50 yards in front of the lead
will consider all comments and material AGENCY
safety vessel preceding the first race
received during the comment period.
participants, 50 yards behind the safety 40 CFR Part 52
Your comment can help shape the
vessel trailing the last race participants,
outcome of this rulemaking. If you [EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0464; FRL–9947–36–
and at all times extend 100 yards on
submit a comment, please include the Region 6]
either side of safety vessels. The Swim
docket number for this rulemaking,
Around Charleston swimming race
indicate the specific section of this Approval and Promulgation of Air
consists of a 12 mile course that starts
document to which each comment Quality Implementation Plans;
at Remley’s Point on the Wando River
applies, and provide a reason for each Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air
in approximate position 32°48′49″ N.,
suggestion or recommendation. Pollution for the 2008 Ozone National
79°54′27″ W., crosses the main shipping
We encourage you to submit Ambient Air Quality Standards
channel under the main span of the
comments through the Federal Ravenel Bridge, and finishes at the I– AGENCY: Environmental Protection
eRulemaking Portal at http:// 526 bridge and boat landing on the Agency (EPA).
www.regulations.gov. If your material Ashley River in approximate position ACTION: Proposed rule.
cannot be submitted using http:// 32°50′14″ N., 80°01′23″ W. All
www.regulations.gov, contact the person coordinates are North American Datum SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 1983. Agency (EPA) proposes to disapprove
CONTACT section of this document for (b) Definition. As used in this section, the portion of a Louisiana State
alternate instructions. ‘‘designated representative’’ means Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal
We accept anonymous comments. All Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, pertaining to interstate transport of air
comments received will be posted including Coast Guard coxswains, petty pollution which will significantly
without change to http:// officers, and other officers operating contribute to nonattainment or interfere
www.regulations.gov and will include Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, with maintenance of the 2008 ozone
any personal information you have and local officers designated by or National Ambient Air Quality Standards
provided. For more about privacy and assisting the Captain of the Port (NAAQS) in other states. Disapproval
the docket, you may review a Privacy Charleston in the enforcement of the will establish a 2-year deadline for the
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket regulated areas. EPA to promulgate a Federal
Management System in the March 24, (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and Implementation Plan (FIP) for Louisiana
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 vessels are prohibited from entering, to address the Clean Air Act (CAA)
FR 15086). transiting through, anchoring in, or interstate transport requirements
remaining within the regulated area, pertaining to significant contribution to
Documents mentioned in this NPRM nonattainment and interference with
as being available in the docket, and all except persons and vessels participating
in the Swim Around Charleston, or maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
public comments, will be in our online in other states, unless we approve a SIP
docket at http://www.regulations.gov serving as safety vessels.
(2) Persons and vessels desiring to that meets these requirements.
and can be viewed by following that Disapproval does not start a mandatory
Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if enter, transit through, anchor in, or
remain within the regulated area may sanctions clock for Louisiana.
you go to the online docket and sign up
contact the Captain of the Port DATES: Comments must be received on
for email alerts, you will be notified
Charleston by telephone at (843)740– or before July 7, 2016.
when comments are posted or a final
7050, or a designated representative via ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
rule is published.
VHF radio on channel 16, to request identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 authorization. If authorization to enter, OAR–2013–0464, at http://
transit through, anchor in, or remain www.regulations.gov or via email to
Marine safety, Navigation (water), within the regulated area is granted, all fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. Follow the
Reporting and recordkeeping persons and vessels receiving such online instructions for submitting
requirements, Waterways. authorization must comply with the comments. Once submitted, comments
For the reasons discussed in the instructions of the Captain of the Port cannot be edited or removed from
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to Charleston or a designated Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: representative. any comment received to its public
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM 07JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36605/page/1.svg)
![36498 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
provided was based upon the old 1997 NAAQS or any statements that EPA’s obligation, see EME Homer City, 696
8-hour ozone NAAQS requirements and approval of the SIP submissions either F.3d 7, on April 29, 2014, the Supreme
was therefore not sufficient to support a relieve EPA of the obligation to Court reversed this decision and
conclusion that the State’s ozone promulgate a FIP or remove EPA’s remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for
emissions do not contribute to authority to promulgate a FIP.’’ 76 FR further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer
nonattainment or interfere with 48208, 48220. In reviewing CSAPR, the City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. D.C. Circuit concluded that our (2014). The Supreme Court explained
In its response, Louisiana disagreed, and correction of the prior CAIR approvals that ‘‘nothing in the statute places EPA
accordingly chose not to revise its was appropriate, explaining ‘‘when our under an obligation to provide specific
proposed SIP revision or provide any decision in North Carolina deemed metrics to States before they undertake
additional support for its conclusions. CAIR to be an invalid effort to to fulfill their good neighbor
Instead, Louisiana contended in its implement the requirements of the good obligations.’’ Id. at 1601.
response to comments that, ‘‘the neighbor provision, that ruling meant Because the Louisiana submittal
information based on the 1997 8-hour that the initial approval of the CAIR addressed by this action concerns states’
ozone NAAQS requirements is relevant SIPs was in error at the time it was interstate transport obligations for a
. . . through the CAIR NOX program in done.’’ EME Homer City Generation, L.P different and more stringent standard
that it demonstrates the state’s most v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 133 (D.C. Cir. (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), it is not
recent efforts in maintaining the 8-hour 2015). Therefore, the D.C. Circuit has sufficient to merely cite as evidence of
ozone NAAQS and to alleviate transport clearly concluded that states cannot rely compliance that these older programs
pollutants.’’ A copy of the Louisiana SIP on CAIR or previously approved CAIR have been implemented by the states or
submittal, which includes our February SIPs to satisfy the requirements of the EPA.8 The submittal lacks any
15, 2013, comment letter and the State’s section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). technical analysis evaluating or
response to comments, may be accessed Even if Louisiana could rely on its demonstrating whether emissions in
online at http://www.regulations.gov, CAIR SIPs, as we stated in our comment each state impact air quality in other
Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0464. letter, the modeling and rulemaking states with respect to the 2008 ozone
conducted for both CAIR and CSAPR NAAQS. As such, the submittal does
III. The EPA’s Evaluation not provide us with a basis to agree with
addressed the 1997 ozone NAAQS, not
As noted above, we informed the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS the conclusion that the State already has
Louisiana in our February 15, 2013, at issue in this action. EPA-approved adequate provisions in the SIP to
comment letter that the information rules implementing a prior, less address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
provided in the SIP submittal would not stringent NAAQS are not adequate on requirements for the 2008 ozone
itself be sufficient to conclude that the their own to support a demonstration NAAQS. Thus, we propose to find that
State has adequate provisions to regarding the impacts of in-state the Louisiana submittal is not adequate
prohibit air pollutant emissions from emissions on air quality in other states as it did not evaluate whether emissions
within the State that significantly with respect to the 2008 ozone from the State significantly contribute to
contribute to nonattainment or interfere NAAQS.7 Additionally, although we nonattainment or interfere with
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone approved the Louisiana abbreviated SIP maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
NAAQS in other states. However, the in other states.
implementing the CAIR NOX trading
SIP submittal provided by Louisiana Although the Louisiana submittal
program, neither the states nor the EPA
cited the State’s approved CAIR SIP as contains no data or analysis to support
are currently implementing the ozone-
support for its conclusion that the State their conclusion with respect to section
season NOX trading program
satisfied its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 8-hour
promulgated in CAIR, as it has been
obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone standard, we recently shared new
replaced by CSAPR. Moreover, although
ozone NAAQS. technical information with states to
First, CAIR was invalidated by the the State cites to a State regulation
facilitate efforts to address interstate
D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, requiring that already-installed controls
transport requirements for the 2008
531 F.3d 896 (2008). The D.C. Circuit be ‘‘used’’ and ‘‘maintained,’’ the State
ozone NAAQS. Such technical
held, among other things, that the CAIR does not provide any explanation as to
information provides further support to
rule did not ‘‘achieve[] something whether the sources are subject to
our determination that Louisiana is
measureable toward the goal of specific emissions limitations or how
projected to significantly contribute to
prohibiting sources within the State the use of the controls will impact nonattainment and interfere with
from contributing to nonattainment or downwind air quality. maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
interfering with maintenance in any Finally, it is no longer appropriate for
in other states. We developed this
other State.’’ Id. at 908; see also, e.g., id. Louisiana to rely on the D.C. Circuit
technical information following the
at 916 (EPA is not exercising its decision vacating CSAPR as a basis for
same approach used to evaluate
authority to make measureable progress concluding that its SIP is adequate.
interstate transport in CSAPR in order to
towards the goals of section Although the D.C. Circuit initially held
support the recently proposed Cross-
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) because the emission that states did not have an obligation to State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
budgets were insufficiently related to make a SIP submission addressing 2008 Ozone NAAQS, (80 FR 75706,
the statutory mandate). In promulgating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until we first December 3, 2015) (‘‘CSAPR Update
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
CSAPR, we corrected our prior quantified a state’s emission reduction Rule’’).
approvals of states’ CAIR SIPs, 7 Louisiana’s citation to our July 20, 2007 action
In CSAPR, we used detailed air
including Louisiana’s approved CAIR approving Louisiana’s CAIR sulfur dioxide SIP
quality analyses to determine whether
SIPs, ‘‘to rescind any statements that the revision is particularly inapplicable. 72 FR 39741. an eastern state’s contribution to
SIP submissions either satisfy or relieve Sulfur dioxide is not a precursor or pollutant that
the state of the obligation to submit a contributes to ozone formation, and therefore, the 8 This is particularly true where, as here,
implementation of any control requirements to Louisiana has failed to include any analysis of the
SIP to satisfy the requirements of address sulfur dioxide emissions is irrelevant to our downwind impacts of emissions originating within
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to analysis of the State’s control requirements to their borders. See, e.g., Westar Energy Inc. v. EPA,
the 1997 ozone and/or 1997 PM2.5 address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 608 Fed. Appx. 1, 3–4 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM 07JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36605/page/3.svg)
![36500 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules
in other states. Louisiana’s emissions the Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston maintenance receptors in the Dallas/
were linked (1) to eastern nonattainment areas of Texas, and (2) to eastern Fort Worth and Houston areas.
receptors in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, and
TABLE 1—LOUISIANA’S LARGEST CONTRIBUTION TO DOWNWIND NONATTAINMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREAS
[Proposed CSAPR Update Rule]
Downwind
Largest down- Largest down-
Air quality Downwind nonattainment maintenance
2008 Ozone NAAQS wind contribution wind contribution
threshold receptors located in states receptors
to nonattainment to maintenance located in states
0.075 ppm (75 parts per billion or 0.75 ppb ............ 3.09 ppb ............ 4.23 ppb ............ Wisconsin, Texas ............... Texas
ppb).
Accordingly, the most recent or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section not apply on any Indian reservation
technical analysis available to us 110(k)(5). land, any other area where the EPA or
contradicts Louisiana’s conclusion that an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
V. Statutory and Executive Order
the SIP contains adequate provisions to tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation
Reviews
address interstate transport as to the areas of Indian country. Thus, Executive
2008 ozone standard. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Order 13175 does not apply to this
We are thus proposing to disapprove Planning and Review and Executive action.
the portion of the Louisiana SIP Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
submittal pertaining to interstate Regulatory Review G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
transport of air pollution which will Children From Environmental Health
This proposed action is not a
significantly contribute to Risks and Safety Risks
significant regulatory action and was
nonattainment or interfere with therefore not submitted to the Office of We interpret Executive Order 13045
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS Management and Budget for review. as applying only to those regulatory
in other states—i.e., element (D)(i)(I). As
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) actions that concern environmental
explained above, the Louisiana
health or safety risks that we have
submittal did not provide an adequate This proposed action does not impose
an information collection burden under reason to believe may
technical analysis demonstrating that
the PRA because it does not contain any disproportionately affect children, per
the SIP contains adequate provisions
prohibiting emissions that will information collection activities. the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
significantly contribute to action’’ in section 2–202 of the
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Executive Order. This action is not
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS I certify that this proposed action will subject to Executive Order 13045
in any other state. Moreover, our most not have a significant economic impact because it merely proposes to
recent modeling indicates that on a substantial number of small entities disapprove a SIP submission as not
emissions from Louisiana are in fact under the RFA. This action merely meeting the CAA.
projected to significantly contribute to proposes to disapprove a SIP
submission as not meeting the CAA. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
nonattainment and interfere with Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Distribution or Use
in other states. (UMRA)
This proposed action is not subject to
IV. Proposed Action This proposed action does not contain
any unfunded mandate as described in Executive Order 13211, because it is not
We propose to disapprove the portion a significant regulatory action under
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does
of a June 4, 2013 Louisiana SIP Executive Order 12866.
not significantly or uniquely affect small
submittal pertaining to CAA section
governments. The action imposes no I. National Technology Transfer and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the interstate transport
enforceable duty on any state, local or Advancement Act
of air pollution which will significantly
tribal governments or the private sector.
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
This proposed rulemaking does not
with maintenance of the 2008 ozone E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
involve technical standards.
NAAQS in other states. This proposed action does not have
Pursuant to CAA section 110(c)(1), federalism implications. It will not have J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
disapproval will establish a 2-year substantial direct effects on the states, Actions To Address Environmental
deadline for the EPA to promulgate a on the relationship between the national Justice in Minority Populations and
FIP for Louisiana to address the government and the states, or on the Low-Income Populations
requirements of CAA section distribution of power and
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to the 2008 responsibilities among the various We believe the human health or
ozone NAAQS unless Louisiana submits levels of government. environmental risk addressed by this
and we approve a SIP that meets these action will not have potential
requirements. Disapproval does not start F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation disproportionately high and adverse
a mandatory sanctions clock for and Coordination With Indian Tribal human health or environmental effects
Louisiana pursuant to CAA section 179 Governments on minority, low-income or indigenous
because this action does not pertain to This proposed action does not have populations. This action merely
a part D plan for nonattainment areas tribal implications as specified in proposes to disapprove a SIP
required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) Executive Order 13175. This action does submission as not meeting the CAA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM 07JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36605/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 7, 2016 / Proposed Rules 36501
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 full text of this document is available for unlicensed device detects any
Environmental protection, Air inspection and copying during normal transmitted DSRC signal, it would avoid
pollution control, Incorporation by business hours in the FCC Reference using the entire DSRC band to assure no
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th interference occurs to DSRC
Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Volatile Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The communications. After waiting a certain
organic compounds. full text may also be downloaded at: amount of time the unlicensed device
www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities: would again sense the DSRC spectrum
Dated: May 26, 2016. To request materials in accessible to determine if any DSRC channels are
Ron Curry, formats for people with disabilities in use or whether it could safely
Regional Administrator, Region 6. (braille, large print, electronic files, transmit.
[FR Doc. 2016–13493 Filed 6–6–16; 8:45 am] audio format), send an email to fcc504@ The ‘‘re-channelization’’ approach
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P fcc.gov or call the Consumer & involves splitting the DSRC spectrum
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) into two contiguous blocks: The upper
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 (tty). part of the band exclusively for safety-
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS related communications, and permitting
Synopsis unlicensed devices to share the lower
COMMISSION
The non-Federal Mobile Service part of the band with non-safety DSRC
47 CFR Part 15 operating on a primary basis in the communications. This would be
5.850–5.925 GHz band is limited to accomplished by moving the control
[ET Docket No. 13–49; FCC 16–68] DSRC systems, a component of the channel and the two public safety
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) channels to the top portion of the band,
Unlicensed National Information
radio service. and reconfiguring the remaining four
Infrastructure (U–NII) Devices in the 5 In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking DSRC service channels in the lower end
GHz Band in February 2013, the Commission of the band as two 20 megahertz
AGENCY: Federal Communications explored the potential for future channels rather than maintaining four
Commission. unlicensed operations in the 5.850– 10 megahertz channels. Under this
ACTION: Proposed rule. 5.925 GHz band, and sought comment approach, sharing between unlicensed
on technical requirements and sharing devices and non-safety DSRC would
SUMMARY: This document invites technologies and techniques that could occur according to the sharing protocols
interested parties to update and refresh be used by unlicensed users to protect used by standard 802.11 devices, i.e.,
the record on the status of potential incumbent operations, and specifically the device would listen for an ‘‘open’’
sharing solutions between proposed DSRC. See Revision of Part 15 of the channel in the 5.850–5.895 GHz band
Unlicensed National Information Commission’s Rules to Permit and transmit if available. Otherwise the
Infrastructure (U–NII) devices and Unlicensed National Information device would wait a very short period
Dedicated Short Range Communications Infrastructure (U–NII) Devices in the 5 of time, and then try again.
(DSRC) operations in the 5.850–5.925 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 13–49, Notice The Commission now seeks comment
GHz (U–NII–4) band. The Commission of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd on the merits of these two approaches.
also solicits the submittal of prototype 1769 (2013) (NPRM); 78 FR 21320, April What are the benefits and drawbacks of
unlicensed interference-avoiding 10, 2013. each approach? Would one approach be
devices for testing, and seeks comment In comments on the Commission’s better than the other (e.g., minimize the
on a proposed FCC test plan to evaluate proposal, the automobile industry and risks of interference to DSRC more
electromagnetic compatibility of the National Telecommunications and effectively while providing a
unlicensed devices and DSRC. The Information Administration (NTIA) on comparable degree of meaningful access
collection of relevant empirical data behalf the Department of Transportation to spectrum for unlicensed devices)? For
will assist the FCC, the Department of (DoT) raised potential interference either approach, is it necessary for the
Transportation, and the National concerns with respect to protecting Commission to specify all the details of
Telecommunications and Information DSRC from unlicensed users. the interference avoidance mechanism
Administration in their ongoing Subsequently, in August 2013, the in the FCC rules or can this be
collaboration to analyze and quantify Regulatory Standing Committee of IEEE addressed by relying primarily on
the interference potential introduced to 802.11 formed ‘‘the DSRC Coexistence industry standards bodies to develop
DSRC receivers from unlicensed Tiger Team’’ to investigate potential the specific sharing methods? If the
transmitters operating simultaneously in mitigation techniques that might enable former, what specific technical details
the 5.850–5.925 GHz band. sharing between the proposed need to be specified in the FCC rules
DATES: Comments are due on or before
unlicensed devices and DSRC (e.g., out of bound emissions, noise
July 7, 2016, and reply comments are equipment. The IEEE Tiger Team tolerance, detection threshold, channel
due on or before July 22, 2016. completed its work in March 2015, vacate time, etc.)? Has industry agreed
stating that it was unable to reach a upon performance indicators for DSRC,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
consensus, but instead submitted that and if so, what are these metrics and is
Howard Griboff, Office of Engineering further analyses and testing could there a process to hold products to these
and Technology, (202) 418–0657, email: follow. performance levels?
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Howard.Griboff@fcc.gov, or Aole The IEEE Tiger Team examined two The Commission also seeks comment
Wilkins, Office of Engineering and proposed sharing techniques. The on how the choice of avoidance protocol
Technology, (202) 418–2406, email: ‘‘detect and avoid’’ approach involves affects the deployment and performance
Aole.Wilkins@fcc.gov; TTY (202) 418– detecting the presence of DSRC signals, of DSRC. Would ‘‘re-channelization’’
2989. and avoiding using the spectrum in this require any change in the design of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a band when DSRC signals are present. DSRC electronic components contained
summary of a document in, ET Docket Under this sharing proposal, unlicensed in DSRC prototypes or just require a
No. 13–49, FCC 16–68, adopted May 25, devices would monitor the existing 10 change in the processing of the data?
2016, and released June 1, 2016. The megahertz-wide DSRC channels. If an The Commission seeks comment on
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:45 Jun 06, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07JNP1.SGM 07JNP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_36605/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-08 07:31:57
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 07:31:57
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before July 7, 2016. | |
| Contact | Sherry Fuerst 214-665-6454, [email protected] To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Fuerst or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665- 7253. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 36496 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Ozone; Nitrogen Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR