[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 889-894]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31642]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0721; FRL-9767-3]

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call
for California State Implementation Plan Revision; South Coast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In response to a remand by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, and pursuant to the Clean Air Act, EPA is taking
final action to find that the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin is substantially
inadequate to comply with the obligation to adopt and implement a plan
providing for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. In response to
this finding, California is required to submit a SIP revision
correcting this deficiency within 12 months of the effective date of
this rule. If EPA finds that California has failed to submit a complete
SIP revision as required by this final rule, or if EPA disapproves such
a revision, such finding or disapproval would trigger clocks for
mandatory sanctions and an obligation for EPA to impose a Federal
Implementation Plan. EPA is also taking final action establishing the
order in which mandatory sanctions would apply in the event that EPA
makes a finding of failure to submit a SIP revision or disapproves the
SIP revision. Specifically, the offset sanction would apply 18 months
after such finding or disapproval and highway funding restrictions
would apply six months later. Sanctions would not apply if EPA first
takes action to stay the imposition of the sanctions or to stop the
sanctions clock based on a preliminary or final determination that the
State has corrected the SIP deficiencies.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0721 for this
action. The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105-3901.
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). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action

II. Response to Public Comments
III. Final Action and Consequences
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58072), EPA proposed to find that the
California SIP for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (South Coast)
\1\ is substantially inadequate to comply with the obligation to adopt
and implement a plan providing for attainment of the 1-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or ``standard''). EPA
proposed this finding pursuant to the ``SIP call'' authority found in
section 110(k)(5) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'').\2\ In our
proposed rule, we explained that States remain obligated to adopt and
implement an attainment demonstration plan for the 1-hour ozone
standard, notwithstanding the revocation of the standard in 2005, under
EPA's ``anti-backsliding'' regulations governing the transition from
the 1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.\3\ See 40
CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino
County, and western Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305).
    \2\ Section 110(k)(5) provides, in relevant part, that:
``Whenever [EPA] finds that the [SIP] for any area is substantially
inadequate to attain or maintain the relevant [NAAQS], * * *, or to
otherwise comply with any requirement of this chapter, [EPA] shall
require the State to revise the plan as necessary to correct such
inadequacies.''
    \3\ Our finding of substantial inadequacy under CAA section
110(k)(5) for failure to ``adopt and implement'' a 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstration is not intended as a finding of
nonimplementation under CAA section 179(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also proposed to require California to submit a revision to its
SIP correcting these deficiencies by a date no later than 12 months
after the effective date of a final rule finding the current SIP
inadequate. The SIP revision must meet the requirements of CAA section
182(c)(2)(A) \4\ and demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than five years
from the effective date of a final SIP call unless the State can
justify a later date, not to exceed 10 years beyond the effective date
of the final SIP call. In considering whether a period longer than five
years is warranted, EPA must consider the severity of the remaining
nonattainment problem in the South Coast and the availability and
feasibility of pollution control measures. See section 172(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under CAA section 182(c)(2)(A), the State must submit a
revision to the SIP that includes a demonstration that the plan, as
revised, will provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The
attainment demonstration must be based on photochemical grid
modeling or any other analytical method determined by EPA to be at
least as effective. Section 182(c)(2)(A) applies within ozone
nonattainment areas classified as ``serious,'' but as a general
matter, areas classified as ``extreme'' for the ozone nonattainment
area, such as the South Coast, are subject to the requirements for
lower-classified areas, such as those for ``serious'' areas, as well
as those prescribed specifically for ``extreme'' areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We noted that if EPA were to find that California has failed to
submit a complete SIP revision or if EPA disapproves such revision,
such finding or disapproval would trigger clocks for mandatory
sanctions and an obligation for EPA to impose a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP). EPA proposed that if EPA makes such a finding or
disapproval, the offset sanction would apply 18 months after such
finding or disapproval and highway funding restrictions would apply six
months later. Sanctions would apply unless EPA first takes action to
stay the imposition of the sanctions or to stop the sanctions clock
based on a preliminary or final determination that the State has cured
the SIP deficiencies.
    EPA proposed this action in response to a decision by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit or Court)
in a lawsuit challenging EPA's partial approval and partial disapproval
of the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP.\5\ See Association of
Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as
amended on January 27, 2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13,
2012 (``AIR v. EPA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA's final action challenged in the AIR v. EPA case was
published at 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP was intended by California to
update the attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard for
the South Coast contained in the 1997/1999 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP
that EPA approved in 2000. Among other issues, the petitioners in the
AIR v. EPA case challenged EPA's conclusion that the Agency's
disapproval of the updated attainment demonstration for the 1-hour
ozone standard in the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP did not
obligate the Agency to promulgate a FIP because the plan that was
disapproved was not required to be submitted given that the SIP
contained a fully-approved 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for
the South Coast (i.e., the 1997/1999 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP).
    The court disagreed with EPA, and held that EPA must promulgate a
FIP under CAA section 110(c) or issue a SIP call where EPA disapproves
a new attainment demonstration unless the Agency determines that the
SIP as approved remains sufficient to demonstrate attainment of the
NAAQS.
    In response, EPA reviewed the 1997/1999 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone
SIP to determine whether it remained sufficient to demonstrate
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard notwithstanding the disapproval
of the updated 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration in the 2003 South
Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP and determined that the SIP was substantially
inadequate to comply with the obligation under EPA's anti-backsliding
regulations to adopt and implement a 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration. In the September 19, 2012 proposed rule, EPA proposed
this finding of substantial inadequacy based on the following
considerations:
     Documentation included in the 2003 South Coast 1-Hour
Ozone SIP showing that motor vehicle emissions were significantly
underestimated in the 1997/1999 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP; that the
carrying capacity associated with attainment of the 1-hour ozone
standard was significantly lower than projected for the 1997/1999 South
Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP; and that, as a result, additional emissions
reductions would be necessary to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by
the applicable attainment date (November 15, 2010) beyond those
incorporated in the 1997/1999 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP;
     EPA's ``anti-backsliding'' requirements promulgated in
2004 governing the transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the
1997 8-hour ozone standard and requiring a state to adopt and implement
an attainment demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard (40 CFR
51.905(a)(1)(i)) notwithstanding the revocation of the 1-hour ozone
standard in areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard; and
     EPA's final determination at 76 FR 82133 (December 30,
2011) that the South Coast area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone
standard by the applicable attainment date (November 15, 2010).

See the proposed rule at 77 FR 58072, at 58074-58075 (September 19,
2012).
    For more information about the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards,
the designations and classifications for the South Coast, the various
South Coast SIP revisions submitted in response to CAA nonattainment
area requirements, the litigation over EPA's action on the 2003 South
Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP, and the rationale behind the proposed 12-month
deadline and sequence of mandatory sanctions, please see our September
19, 2012 proposed rule.

II. Response to Public Comments

    As stated above, on September 19, 2012, EPA proposed to find that
the California SIP was substantially inadequate to comply with the
obligation to adopt and implement a plan providing for attainment of
the 1-hour ozone standard (see 77 FR 58072), and held a 30-day comment
period which ended on October 19, 2012. On October 16, 2012, we
received two requests to extend the comment period. On October 25,
2012, we published a Federal Register notice reopening the comment
period for 14 days (see 77 FR 65151). This comment period ended on
November 8, 2012.
    In response to the proposed rule, we received 11 comment letters
that we have grouped into five categories. We received comments from:
     Pechanga Indian Reservation-Temecula Band of Luiseno
Mission Indians (``Pechanga Tribe'');
     South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and
the State of California Air Resources Board (CARB) (``government
agencies'');
     Coalition for Clean Air, Communities for a Better
Environment, Natural Resources Defense Council; and Physicians for
Social Responsibility--Los Angeles, (``environmental and community
groups'');
     American Chemistry Council, American Coatings Association,
Consumer Specialty Products Association, International Fragrance
Association, National Aerosol Association, and Personal Care Products
Council (``industry groups''); and
     A private citizen.
    None of the commenters challenged the proposed finding of
substantial inadequacy, the proposed one-year deadline for submittal of
a new 1-hour ozone attainment plan, the proposed sequence for
application of mandatory sanctions in the event of failure by
California to meet the deadline, or the proposed application of the
provisions in 40 CFR 52.31 regarding staying the sanctions clock and
deferring the imposition of sanctions. Instead, the comments relate to
the contents of a future 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the
South Coast and the potential impacts of the SIP call on Indian tribes
in the region. Below, we set forth a summary of the comments and EPA's
responses.

Pechanga Tribe

    Comment 1: In its comment letter, the Pechanga Tribe requested an
opportunity to consult on a government to government basis with EPA
Region IX regarding the potential impacts of this proposed action on
federally recognized tribes located in the region.
    Response 1: On November 28, 2012, EPA Region IX staff met with
members and representatives of the Pechanga Tribe and explained that,
as stated in the proposed rule, EPA foresaw no direct impact to the
Tribe due to a SIP call for a new South Coast 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration plan. EPA acknowledged that a portion of Pechanga Indian
country lies within the South Coast 1-hour ozone ``extreme''
nonattainment area, but indicated that, under the ``Tribal Authority
Rule'' (40 CFR part 49), tribes are not subject to SIP submittal
deadlines. See 40 CFR 49.4(a).\6\ Moreover, under 40 CFR 49.4(c),
Tribes will also not be treated as States with respect to the mandatory
imposition of sanctions under section 179 of the Act because of a
failure to submit an implementation plan or required plan element by a
specific deadline, or the submittal of an incomplete or disapproved
plan or element. Thus, the Tribes in the South Coast will not be
subject to the deadline that we are setting today for the State of
California for submittal of a new 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration
for the South Coast, and the Tribes will not be subject to mandatory
sanctions in the event that sanctions are imposed as a consequence of
failure to submit or disapproval of the submitted SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under 40 CFR 49.4(a), Tribes will not treated as States with
respect to specific plan submittal and implementation deadlines for
NAAQS-related requirements, such as the deadline established in
today's final SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government Agencies

    Comment 2: In response to the attainment date that would be
established under the proposed SIP call (i.e. as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than five years unless the State can justify a
later date, not to exceed 10 years), SCAQMD indicates that it and CARB
intend to request and justify that the full ten years are needed for
the attainment demonstration.
    Response 2: This comment is not relevant for purposes of the
current rule as it concerns the potential contents of a future SIP
submittal from the State. Consistent with the requirement of CAA
section 172(a)(2)(A), EPA would consider the severity of nonattainment
and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures in
determining whether to approve any future submitted plan with an
attainment date that is later than five years from the effective date
of this final rule.
    Comment 3: SCAQMD asserts that the new technology provisions of CAA
section 182(e)(5) are available for the purposes of the new 1-hour
ozone attainment demonstration plan for the South Coast so long as the
reductions to be obtained from them are not needed for the first ten
years after November 15, 1990, i.e. through November 15, 2000, citing
CAA section 182(e)(5). While the SCAQMD asserts that the plain language
of section 182(e)(5) settles any question as to whether that provision
applies to a new 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan for the
``extreme'' South Coast nonattainment area, it also asserts that there
is no policy reason to interpret the statute to preclude reliance on
section 182(e)(5) even if the language were ambiguous. CARB's comment
letter expressed agreement and support for comments provided by SCAQMD
on the availability of CAA section 182(e)(5) new technology provisions
for the new South Coast 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan.
    Response 3: We did not explicitly address section 182(e)(5) \7\ in
our proposed SIP call because its availability or lack of availability
is not directly relevant to the issue of our finding of substantial
inadequacy of the California SIP for the South Coast with respect to
the 1-hour ozone standard, or the issues of submittal or attainment
dates. Thus, this comment is not relevant for purposes of the current
rule as it concerns the potential contents of a future SIP submittal
from the State. We will consider the approvability of the future South
Coast 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration, including the control
strategy on which it relies, once the plan is submitted, in the context
of a subsequent rulemaking on the submitted plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 182(e)(5) states, in part: ``[EPA] may, * * *,
approve provisions of an implementation plan for an Extreme Area
which anticipate development of new control techniques or
improvement of existing control technologies, and an attainment
demonstration based on such provisions, if the State demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the [EPA] that (A) such provisions are not
necessary to achieve the incremental emission reductions required
during the first 10 years after November 15, 1990; and (B) the State
has submitted enforceable commitments to develop and adopt
contingency measures to be implemented as set forth herein if the
anticipated technologies do not achieve planned reductions.''
Provisions in a SIP that rely on section 182(e)(5) are commonly
referred to as ``black box'' or ``new technology'' provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental and Community Groups

    Comment 4: Citing the long period of nonattainment and the health
effects of ozone at levels even below the 1-hour ozone standard,
environmental and community groups request that the final

rule include more details about the need for a 1-hour ozone plan in the
South Coast.
    Response 4: EPA believes that the Agency provided sufficient
support for its finding of substantial inadequacy and related SIP call.
The rationale for the proposed finding and SIP call is set forth at 77
FR, 58072, 58074-58075. In short, in response to a remand by the Ninth
Circuit in the AIR v. EPA case, we proposed to find the approved 1997/
1999 South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP is substantially inadequate to
provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard and is therefore
substantially inadequate to comply with EPA's ``anti-backsliding''
requirement at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1)(i) to adopt and implement such a
plan for the South Coast. We based this determination on a review of
the technical information and updated control measure strategy
contained in the 2003 South Coast SIP and also considered our
determination in December 2011 that the South Coast had failed to
attain the applicable attainment date (2010) for the 1-hour ozone
standard. Today, we are taking final action to find that the California
SIP is substantially inadequate and to issue the SIP call for a new 1-
hour ozone attainment demonstration plan for the South Coast on the
basis of the rationale set forth in the proposed rule.
    Comment 5: The environmental and community groups believe that EPA
should clearly state that the future 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration plan cannot rely on the new technology provisions of
section 182(e)(5) (i.e., the ``black box''). The groups contend that
the text of the CAA demonstrates that the black box was not intended to
be used past the attainment date. In support for this contention, the
groups note that, under section 182(e)(5), there can be no contingency
measures that are ``adequate to produce emissions reductions
sufficient, * * * to achieve the periodic emissions reductions * * *
and attainment by the applicable dates'' where, as is the case for
South Coast, the attainment date (2010) has passed.
    Response 5: In issuing a SIP call, CAA section 110(k)(5) directs
EPA to the extent that EPA deems appropriate to subject the State to
the requirements of this chapter to which the State was subject when it
developed and submitted the plan for which such finding was made,
except that the EPA may adjust any dates applicable under such
requirements as appropriate (except that the EPA may not adjust any
attainment date prescribed under part D of this subchapter, unless such
date has elapsed.) In this case, the prescribed attainment date (2010)
under part D of the title I of the CAA for extreme 1-hour ozone
nonattainment areas, such as the South Coast, has passed, and thus, CAA
section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to establish a new attainment date for
the purposes of the new South Coast 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration plan.
    With respect to black box provisions, as noted in response to
comment 3, we did not explicitly address section 182(e)(5) in
our proposed SIP call because its availability or lack of availability
is not directly relevant to the issue of our finding of substantial
inadequacy of the California SIP for the South Coast with respect to
the 1-hour ozone standard, or the issues of submittal or attainment
dates. Thus, this comment is not relevant for purposes of the current
rule as it concerns the potential contents of a future SIP submittal
from the State. We will consider the approvability of the future South
Coast 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration, including the control
strategy on which it relies, once the plan is submitted, in the context
of a subsequent rulemaking on the submitted plan.
    Comment 6: The environmental and community groups assert that the
new requirements that must be fulfilled by SIPs in 1-hour ozone areas
that fail to attain by the statutory deadline are provided in section
179(d). They further assert that the failure to attain does not allow
areas to start all over again under section 182 and that the new plan
should be governed by sections 110 and 172, neither of which provide
for a black box. Moreover, they contend that the attainment deadline
for these areas is governed by section 179(d)(3).
    Response 6: We disagree that the new requirements for the new 1-
hour attainment demonstration are governed by the provisions of section
179(d). The provisions of section 179(d) are triggered by a finding of
failure to attain the standard under section 179(c), but under our
anti-backsliding regulations governing the transition from the 1-hour
ozone standard to the 8-hour ozone standard, we are no longer obligated
to determine pursuant to section 179(c) whether an area attained the 1-
hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment date for the 1-hour
ozone standard. See 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2). In our 2011 determination that
the South Coast failed to attain the applicable attainment date (2010)
for the 1-hour ozone standard, we relied on section 301(a) and the
relevant portion of section 181(b)(2) for the purpose of ensuring
implementation of 1-hour ozone anti-backsliding requirements, such as
contingency measures and section 185 major stationary source fee
programs. See 76 FR 82133, at 82145 (December 30, 2011). We did not
make the determination of failure to attain under section 179(c) and
thus the provisions of section 179(d) do not apply.
    As to the applicability of subpart 2 requirements, we note that the
``substantial inadequacy'' that is the basis for our SIP call relates
directly to the requirements that continue to apply to an 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area by virtue of that area's classification under
subpart 2 for the 1-hour ozone standard at the time we designated the
area as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. In this
instance, the South Coast 8-hour ozone nonattainment area remains
subject to the obligation to adopt and implement the ``applicable
requirements'' in 40 CFR 51.900(f) to the extent such requirements
apply or applied to the South Coast as an ``extreme'' area for the 1-
hour ozone standard in June 2004 (i.e., at designation for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard). One such ``applicable requirement'' is the
attainment demonstration requirement. 40 CFR 51.900(f)(13).
    EPA had approved a 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan for
the South Coast (i.e., the 1997/1999 South Coast Ozone SIP) prior to
revocation, but in response to the remand in the AIR v. EPA case, we
reconsidered the adequacy of 1997/1999 South Coast Ozone SIP for
compliance with the obligation to adopt and implement a 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstration, and proposed to find the 1997/1999 South
Coast Ozone SIP substantially inadequate to comply with the anti-
backsliding requirements and to require California to submit a new 1-
hour ozone attainment demonstration plan for the ``extreme'' South
Coast 1-hour ozone nonattainment area within one year of the effective
date of the final determination.
    Even though we look to subpart 2 (of part D) and 40 CFR
51.905(a)(1) as the statutory and regulatory basis, respectively, for
the new South Coast 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration, we do not
view our SIP call for the South Coast as allowing California to start
all over again. The new 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration plan
necessarily will build upon the extensive ozone control strategy
developed over the past 40 years in the South Coast. Moreover, the new
plan will not be allowed 20 years to demonstrate attainment of the 1-
hour ozone standard, as was initially allowed for ``extreme'' ozone
nonattainment areas, under the CAA Amendments of 1990. Rather, the new
plan must

demonstrate attainment as expeditiously has practicable but no later
than five years from the final SIP call unless California can justify a
later date, not to exceed 10 years beyond the final SIP call, by
considering the severity of the remaining nonattainment problem in the
South Coast and the availability and feasibility of pollution control
measures.
    Lastly, while we disagree that section 179(d)(3) applies to
establish the attainment date for the new 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration plan, we note that the attainment deadline under section
179(d)(3) would only be a little over one year earlier than the
deadline established in this final action because they both derive from
the formulation set forth in section 172(a)(2) (``* * * as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years, * * * may
extend the attainment date * * * for a period no greater than 10 years
* * *''). The only difference is that the start date for the final SIP
call will be the effective date of this final rule, whereas section
179(d)(3) would have established a start date of December 30, 2011,
i.e., the publication date of our final finding of failure to attain
the 1-hour ozone standard for the South Coast (76 FR 82133).
    Comment 7: The environmental and community groups contend that, if
black box measures are allowed for an attainment plan developed after a
region failed to attain the deadline, the state or local air district
would have no incentive to close the black box within the attainment
timeframes laid out in the CAA and could continually roll the black box
over past the attainment date. Second, as a practical matter, the
environmental and community groups contend that allowance for black box
measures for a plan with at most a ten year planning horizon does not
allow for the time necessary to develop the types of new technologies
envisioned in section 182(e)(5).
    Response 7: With respect to black box provisions, as noted in
response to comment 3, we did not explicitly address section
182(e)(5) in our proposed SIP call because its availability or lack of
availability is not directly relevant to the issue of our finding of
substantial inadequacy of the California SIP for the South Coast with
respect to the 1-hour ozone standard, or the issues of submittal or
attainment dates. Thus, this comment is not relevant for purposes of
the current rule as it concerns the potential contents of a future SIP
submittal from the State.

Industry Groups

    Comment 8: The industry groups assert that EPA should not require
California to impose further VOC reductions on the consumer and
commercial products for the new South Coast 1-hour ozone attainment
demonstration. They point out that the 2003 State Strategy included
stringent consumer and commercial products rules to achieve VOC
reductions by 2010, and that this portion of the State Strategy was not
withdrawn. They further contend that additional VOC reductions are
unnecessary to provide for attainment of the 1-hour standard, and that
EPA has the ability to issue a SIP call that focuses on NOX
reductions to address ozone attainment in the South Coast, citing
Michigan v. EPA. Finally, the industry groups assert that control
measures for additional VOC reductions from consumer products would
likely not constitute reasonably available control technology (RACT)
because they would not be economically or technically feasible.
    Response 8: Through this action, EPA is not establishing specific
requirements that must be included as part of the State's plan to
attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In general, a State has fairly broad
discretion to select the mix of control measures it will rely on to
demonstrate attainment and EPA's role is limited to ensuring that the
State plan meets the minimum criteria in the CAA. We are requiring
California to submit a new attainment demonstration for 1-hour ozone,
and we leave to the state's discretion whether to impose further VOC
reductions on sources.

Private Citizen

    Comment 9: A private citizen states that the effect of methane on
the air quality region is understated and asserts that methane affects
the ozone layer. The citizen reports that current studies suggest
spikes in methane emissions, possibly caused by broken pipelines,
earthquake faults or malfunctioning mitigation equipment, and suggests
that a multiple agency response is warranted to address the situation.
    Response 9: This action is being taken with regard to the State's
plan to address ground-level ozone and does not address the effect of
pollutants on the ozone layer. EPA agrees that pollutants that affect
the integrity of the ozone layer are a concern and separate programs
under the Act address that problem. We note that many control measures
that reduce VOC emissions have the co-benefit of reducing methane, and
thus, the new 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration and related control
measures could indirectly result in reductions of methane emissions in
the region.

III. Final Action and Consequences

    For the reasons provided in the proposed rule, and after due
consideration of the comments received, EPA is taking final action,
pursuant to section 110(k)(5) of the CAA, to find that the California
SIP is substantially inadequate to comply with the obligation to adopt
and implement a plan providing for attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
in the Los Angeles-South Coast ozone nonattainment area. In response to
this finding, California must revise and submit to EPA an attainment
demonstration SIP for 1-hour ozone for the South Coast within 12 months
of the effective date of this rule. The SIP must provide for attainment
of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the
effective date of today's rule, unless the State can demonstrate that
it needs up to an additional five years to attain in light of the
severity of the nonattainment problem and the availability and
feasibility of control measures.
    If EPA finds that California has failed to submit a complete SIP
revision as required by this final rule, or if EPA disapproves such a
revision, such finding or disapproval would trigger clocks for
mandatory sanctions and an obligation for EPA to impose a FIP.\8\ In
connection with mandatory sanctions, we are taking final action to
establish the same sequence for application of mandatory sanctions (if
California fails to submit a new 1-hour ozone plan or EPA disapproves
the submitted plan) as established in 40 CFR 52.31. Specifically, our
finding of failure to submit or our disapproval of the SIP revision
will trigger the new source review (NSR) offset sanction in CAA section
179(b)(2) and the highway funding sanction under CAA section 179(b)(1)
in the South Coast ozone nonattainment area 18 months, and 24 months,
respectively, after the effective date of the finding or disapproval.
The sanctions clock will permanently stop once we find the SIP
submittal complete (if we had issued a finding of failure to submit a
complete plan) or take final action approving (if we had disapproved
the plan) SIP revisions meeting the

relevant requirements of the CAA prior to the time the sanctions would
take effect. Lastly, we are taking final action to apply the provisions
in 40 CFR 52.31 regarding staying the sanctions clock and deferring the
imposition of sanctions where we make a preliminary finding that it is
more likely than not that the deficiency has been corrected. A FIP
clock triggered by a finding of failure to submit or a disapproval of a
submitted SIP can be stopped only by EPA approval of a SIP revision
correcting the SIP deficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Tribes having Indian country within the South Coast are not
subject to the deadline established herein for the State of
California nor would they be subject to the imposition of mandatory
sanctions if California were to fail to submit a complete SIP
revision or if EPA were to disapprove the SIP revision submitted by
California in response to this final SIP call. See 40 CFR 49.4(a)
and (c). We also note that the FIP provisions in CAA section
110(c)(1) do not apply to Indian country (40 CFR 49.4(d)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, a finding of substantial inadequacy and subsequent
obligation on a State to revise its SIP arise out of section 110(a) and
110(k)(5). The finding and State obligation do not directly impose any
new regulatory requirements. In addition, the State obligation is not
legally enforceable by a court of law. EPA would review its intended
action on any SIP submittal in response to the finding in light of
applicable statutory and Executive Order requirements, in subsequent
rulemaking acting on such SIP submittal. For those reasons, this rule:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the Tribes with Indian country in the subject ozone
nonattainment area would not be subject to the deadline established
herein for the State of California nor would they be subject to the
imposition of mandatory sanctions if California were to fail to submit
a complete SIP revision or if EPA were to disapprove the SIP revision
submitted by California in response to this final SIP call, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 8, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 19, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-31642 Filed 1-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39764-39765]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16889]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-83-000]

Joint Consumer Representatives v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.;
Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 30, 2015, pursuant to sections 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and sections 206 and 306 of the Federal
Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and 825(e), the Joint Consumer
Representatives (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C, (Respondent) alleging that PJM Interconnection,
L.L.C. has violated Federal Power Act Section 206 by failing to update
its 2015 PJM Region Peak Load Forecast values, for purposes of the
upcoming Capacity Performance Transition Incremental Auctions and 2015
Base Residual Auction, to reflect the impact of recent enhancements to
PJM's load forecasting model that results in an enhanced load forecast.
    The Complainant certify that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts for PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. as listed on the
Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
    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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington,

DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a
subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 20, 2015.

    Dated: July 1, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-16889 Filed 7-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01P


[Federal Register: December 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 76085-76086]
[DOCID:fr22de05-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52957; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-102]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Extend the Duration of CBOE Rule 6.45A(b) Pertaining to
Orders Represented in Open Outcry

December 15, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 13, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the CBOE. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial''
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon
filing with the Commission.\5\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii). See discussion infra Section III.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The CBOE proposes to extend the duration of CBOE Rule 6.45A(b) (the
``Rule''), which relates to the allocation of orders represented in
open outcry in equity option classes designated by the Exchange to be
traded on the CBOE Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid''), through March
14, 2006. No other substantive changes are being made to the Rule. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the CBOE's Internet
Web site (http://www.cboe.com), at the CBOE's principal office, and at

the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In March 2005, the Commission approved revisions to CBOE Rule 6.45A
related to the introduction of Remote Market-Makers.\6\ Among other
things, the Rule, pertaining to the allocation of orders represented in
open outcry in equity options classes traded on Hybrid, was amended to
clarify that only in-crowd market participants would be eligible to
participate in open outcry trade allocations. In addition, the Rule was
amended to limit its duration until September 14, 2005, unless
otherwise extended. The duration of the Rule was thereafter extended
until December 14, 2005.\7\ As the duration period expires on December
14, 2005, the Exchange proposes to extend the effectiveness of the Rule
through March 14, 2006.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51366 (March 14,
2005), 70 FR 13217 (March 18, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-75).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52423 (September 14,
2005), 70 FR 55194 (September 20, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-76).
    \8\ In order to effect proprietary transactions on the floor of
the Exchange, in addition to complying with the requirements of the
Rule, members are also required to comply with the requirements of
Section 11(a)(1) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1), or qualify for an
exemption. Section 11(a)(1) restricts securities transactions of a
member of any national securities exchange effected on that exchange
for (i) the member's own account, (ii) the account of a person
associated with the member, or (iii) an account over which the
member or a person associated with the member exercises discretion,
unless a specific exemption is available. The Exchange issued a
regulatory circular to members informing them of the applicability
of these Section 11(a)(1) requirements when the duration of the Rule
was extended until December 14, 2005. See CBOE Regulatory Circular
RG05-103 (November 2, 2005). The Exchange has represented that it
expects to issue a similar regulatory circular to members reminding
them of the applicability of the Section 11(a)(1) requirements with
respect to the proposed rule change. Telephone conversation between
Jennifer Lamie, Managing Senior Attorney, CBOE, and Edward Cho,
Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission (December 15,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a
national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of
Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \10\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received from Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any

significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become operative
for thirty days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\
thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange has given
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date on which
the Exchange filed the proposed rule change. See 17 CFR 240.19b-
4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Commission Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\
normally does not become operative prior to thirty days after the date
of filing. The CBOE requests that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), and designate
the proposed rule change to become operative immediately to allow the
Exchange to continue to operate under the existing allocation
parameters for orders represented in open outcry in Hybrid on an
uninterrupted basis. The Commission hereby grants the request. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver will allow the CBOE to continue to operate under
the Rule without interruption. For these reasons, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change as effective and operative
immediately.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ For the purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such proposed rule change
if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CBOE-2005-102 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-102. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-102 and should be
submitted on or before January 12, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7665 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 129 (Friday, July 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31454-31455]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0642]

Safety Zone; Annual Event in the Captain of the Port Buffalo
Zone--Brewerton Fireworks

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Brewerton
Fireworks, Oneida Lake, Brewerton, NY. This action is necessary and
intended for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during
this event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may
enter the respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain
of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 165.939(a)(8) will be enforced on July
3, 2017, with a rain date of July 8, 2017, from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email LT Michael Collet, Chief of
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo, 1 Fuhrmann
Blvd., Buffalo, NY 14203; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zone; Annual Event in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33
CFR 165.939(a)(8) for the following event:

    (1) Brewerton Fireworks, Brewerton, NY; The safety zone listed in
33 CFR 165.939(a)(8) will be enforced on July 3, 2017, with a rain date
of July 8, 2017, from 9 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. within a 420 foot radius of
the barge located at position 43[deg]14'18.32'' N., 076[deg]8'1.90'' W.
(NAD83).
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated
representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may
request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16,
VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone
shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of this enforcement period via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the
Captain of the Port Buffalo determines that the safety zone need not be
enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or she may use
a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the
respective safety zone.

    Dated: July 3, 2017.
J.S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2017-14307 Filed 7-3-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P