October 29, 2012 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

EPA is approving the attainment demonstration portion of the attainment plan submitted by the State of Maryland as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. The Maryland SIP revision demonstrates attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE moderate nonattainment area (Philadelphia Area) by the applicable attainment date of June 2011. EPA is approving the SIP revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia for the purpose of establishing amendments to Legislative Rule, 45 CSR 8Ambient Air Quality Standards. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

This action amends the legal description of area navigation (RNAV) route Q-1 by adding two waypoints along the route. In addition, the route description is amended to match a standardized format by adding the appropriate state name to the waypoints, the name and the state of the Point Reyes, CA, navigation aid, and listing of the points in the proper order.

EPA is taking final action to approve most elements, and disapprove narrow portions of other elements, of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions by Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin regarding the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2006 24-hour fine particle national ambient air quality standards (2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each State's air quality management program are adequate to meet the State's responsibilities under the CAA. EPA is also taking final action to approve portions of a submission from Indiana addressing EPA's requirements for its new source review (NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program. The proposed rulemaking was published on August 2, 2012. During the comment period, which ended on September 4, 2012, EPA received five comment letters. The concerns raised in these letters, as well as EPA's responses, will be addressed in this final action.

In this Final Rule, the Commission revises its rules and regulations relating to the filing of privileged material in keeping with the Commission's efforts to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act and the E-Government Act of 2002. First, the Commission establishes two categories of privileged material for filing purposes: Privileged material and critical energy infrastructure information. This revision will expand the ability to file electronically by permitting electronic filing of materials subject to Administrative Law Judge protective orders as appropriate. Second, the Commission revises its regulations to provide a single set of uniform procedures for filing privileged materials. These revisions continue the Commission's effort to reassess and streamline its regulations to ensure that they are efficient, effective and up to date. Also, the Commission revises Rule 213(d) of its Rules of Practice and Procedure, which establishes the timeline for filing answers to motions, to clarify that the standard fifteen day reply time will not apply to motions requesting an extension of time or a shortened time period for action. Instead, the Commission proposes to set the time for responding to such motions at five days, unless another time period is established by notice based on the circumstances.