[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13481-13482]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04657]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0677; Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-5]
RIN 2120-AA66

Revocation of VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-61
and Amendment of Area Navigation Route T-286 Due to the Decommissioning
of the Robinson, KS, VOR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action removes VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airway V-61 in its entirety and extends area navigation (RNAV) route T-
286 in its place. The FAA is taking this action due to the planned
decommissioning of the Robinson, KS (RBA), VOR portion of the Robinson
VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid (NAVAID). The
Robinson VOR is being decommissioned in support of the FAA's VOR
Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, May 21, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the air traffic service route structure in the
National Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2019-0677 in the Federal Register (84 FR 46905; September 6, 2019)
removing VOR Federal airway V-61 and extending RNAV route T-286 in its
place. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No
comments were received.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and RNAV T-
routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11D dated
August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway and RNAV T-route
listed in this document will be subsequently published in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by removing VOR Federal airway V-61 and extending RNAV route T-
286 to overlay the V-61 routing being removed. The planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Robinson, KS, VOR/DME has
made this action necessary. The air traffic service (ATS) route actions
are described below.
    V-61: V-61 extends between the Grand Island, NE, VOR/DME and the
intersection of the Robinson, KS, VOR/DME 141[deg] and St. Joseph, MO,
VOR Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) 211[deg] radials (BOWLR fix). The
airway is removed in its entirety.
    T-286: T-286 extends between the Rapid City, SD, VORTAC and the
Grand Island, NE, VOR/DME. The route is extended southeast between the
Grand Island VOR/DME and the BOWLR fix. Additionally, the Rapid City
VORTAC

``RAP'' identifier is added to the first line of the route description;
the type of fix for the EFFEX fix and the type of NAVAID facility for
Grand Island, NE, are corrected; and the geographic coordinates of each
route point are updated to be expressed in degrees, minutes, seconds,
and hundredths of a second.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this airspace action of removing VOR
Federal airway V-61 and extending RNAV route T-286 in its place has no
potential to cause any significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment. Therefore, this airspace action has been
categorically excluded from further environmental impact review in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). In accordance with
FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances,
the FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which
a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined
no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-61 [Removed]

* * * * *

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-286 Rapid City, SD (RAP) to BOWLR, KS [Amended]

Rapid City, SD (RAP)              VORTAC            (Lat. 43[deg]58'33.74'' N, long. 103[deg]00'44.38'' W)
Gordon, NE (GRN)                  NDB               (Lat. 42[deg]48'03.90'' N, long. 102[deg]10'45.82'' W)
EFFEX, NE                         FIX               (Lat. 42[deg]19'59.17'' N, long. 101[deg]20'11.41'' W)
Thedford, NE (TDD)                VOR/DME           (Lat. 41[deg]58'53.99'' N, long. 100[deg]43'08.52'' W)
BOKKI, NE                         FIX               (Lat. 41[deg]39'54.99'' N, long. 99[deg]52'17.00'' W)
Grand Island, NE (GRI)            VOR/DME           (Lat. 40[deg]59'02.50'' N, long. 98[deg]18'53.20'' W)
Pawnee City, NE (PWE)             VORTAC            (Lat. 40[deg]12'01.27'' N, long. 96[deg]12'22.61'' W)
Robinson, KS (RBA)                DME               (Lat. 39[deg]51'03.00'' N, long. 95[deg]25'23.00'' W)
BOWLR, KS                         FIX               (Lat. 39[deg]37'21.29'' N, long. 95[deg]11'00.26'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 2, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-04657 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41669-41676]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-23]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-0405; FRL-8446-5]

Approval of Implementation Plans; Wisconsin; Clean Air Interstate
Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted
on June 19, 2007. This revision incorporates provisions related to the
implementation of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), promulgated
on May 12, 2005, and subsequently revised on April 28, 2006, and
December 13, 2006, and the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) which
concerns sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) annual, and NOX ozone season emissions for
the State of Wisconsin, promulgated on April 28, 2006, and subsequently
revised December 13, 2006. EPA is not proposing to make any changes to
the CAIR FIP, but is proposing, to the extent EPA approves Wisconsin's
SIP revision, to amend the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP
trading rules simply to note that approval.
    The SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve is an abbreviated

SIP revision that addresses the methodology to be used to allocate
annual and ozone season NOX allowances under the CAIR FIP,
except for allowances in the compliance supplement pool. The portions
of Wisconsin's submittal (those associated with the compliance
supplement pool and Superior Environmental Performance) that EPA is
proposing to disapprove are inconsistent with CAIR and/or otherwise
inappropriate to include in a CAIR SIP and must, therefore, be
disapproved.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 30, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2007-0405, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2007-0405. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov or e-

mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Douglas Aburano, Environmental Engineer,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?
II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?
V. Analysis of Wisconsin's CAIR SIP Submittal
    A. Nature of Wisconsin's Submittal
    B. Summary of Wisconsin's Rules
    C. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations
    D. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs
    E. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NOX SIP Call
Sources
    F. NOX Allowance Allocations
    G. Allocation of Allowances From Compliance Supplement Pool
(CSP)
    H. Individual Opt-In Units
    I. Additional Provisions Found in Wisconsin's Abbreviated CAIR
SIP Submittal
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?

CAIR SIP Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove a
revision to Wisconsin's SIP, submitted on June 19, 2007, which would
modify the application of certain provisions of the CAIR FIP concerning
SO2, NOX annual and NOX ozone season
emissions. (As discussed below, this less comprehensive CAIR SIP is
termed an abbreviated SIP.) Wisconsin is subject to the CAIR FIP that
implements the CAIR requirements by requiring certain EGUs to
participate in the EPA-administered Federal CAIR SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season cap-and-trade
programs. The SIP revision provides a methodology for allocating
NOX allowances for the NOX annual and
NOX ozone season trading programs. The CAIR FIP provides
that this methodology, if approved as EPA is proposing, will be used to
allocate NOX allowances to sources in Wisconsin, instead of
the Federal allocation methodology otherwise provided in the FIP. The
SIP revision also provides a methodology for allocating the CSP in the
CAIR NOX annual trading program. Consistent with the
flexibility provided in the FIP, these provisions, if approved, will be
used to replace or supplement, as appropriate, the corresponding
provisions in the CAIR FIP for Wisconsin. EPA is not proposing to make
any changes to the CAIR FIP, but is proposing, to the extent EPA
approves Wisconsin's SIP revision, to amend the appropriate appendices
in the CAIR FIP trading rules simply to note that approval.
    EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of Wisconsin's submittal.
Certain separable provisions of Wisconsin's abbreviated SIP are not
approvable. These provisions include NR 432.04 ``Compliance supplement
pool'' and NR 432.08 ``Superior environmental performance.'' As
discussed below, NR 432.04 includes provisions that would be
inconsistent with CAIR. NR 432.08 would grant regulatory flexibility to
sources that voluntarily reduce emissions beyond what is required under
State and Federal regulations. The scope of

regulatory flexibility provided by NR 432.08 is ambiguous. To the
extent this flexibility relates to state-only regulatory requirements,
the regulatory provisions are not appropriately included in a SIP. To
the extent this flexibility relates to Federal requirements reflected
in state regulations, this type of flexibility is not allowed under
CAIR, and it is inappropriate to simply assume that other Federal
requirements allow such flexibility. Therefore, the regulatory
flexibility provisions cannot be included in Wisconsin's CAIR
abbreviated SIP revision and cannot be approved.

II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    The CAIR was published by EPA on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In
this rule, EPA determined that 28 states and the District of Columbia
contribute significantly to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS for fine particles (PM2.5) and/or
8-hour ozone in downwind states in the eastern part of the country. As
a result, EPA required those upwind states to revise their SIPs to
include control measures that reduce emissions of SO2, which
is a precursor to PM2.5 formation, and/or NOX,
which is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5 formation. For
jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM2.5
nonattainment, CAIR sets annual statewide emission reduction
requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO2 and annual statewide
emission reduction requirements for NOX. Similarly, for
jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone
nonattainment, CAIR sets statewide emission reduction requirements for
NOX for the ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under
CAIR, states may implement these emission budgets by participating in
the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other
control measures.
    CAIR sets forth what subject states must include in SIPs to address
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective May
25, 2005, that the states had failed to submit SIPs meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000,
three years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. These findings started a two-year clock for EPA to promulgate a
FIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA
section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are
made and must do so within two years unless a SIP revision correcting
the deficiency is approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all states covered by
CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are
achieved on schedule. Each CAIR state is subject to the FIPs until the
state fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require certain EGUs to participate
in the EPA-administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone-season model trading programs, as appropriate. The
CAIR FIP SO2, NOX annual, and NOX
ozone season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements
as, and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs.
The integration of the CAIR FIP and SIP trading programs means that
these trading programs will work together to effectively create a
single trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season) in all states
covered by CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The CAIR
FIPs also allow states to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that, if
approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement the
corresponding CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating
NOX allowances to sources in the state), while the CAIR FIP
remains in place for all other provisions.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA published two more CAIR-related final rules
that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of states
subject to CAIR for PM2.5 and announced EPA's final
decisions on reconsideration of five issues without making any
substantive changes to the CAIR requirements.

III. What Are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    CAIR establishes statewide emission budgets for SO2 and
NOX and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase
of NOX reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014,
while the first phase of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 and
continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both
NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter. CAIR requires states to implement the budgets by either:
(1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs; or, (2) adopting other control measures of the state's
choosing and demonstrating that such control measures will result in
compliance with the applicable state SO2 and NOX
budgets.
    The May 12, 2005, and April 28, 2006, CAIR rules provide model
rules that states must adopt (with certain limited changes, if
desired), if they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading
programs.
    With two exceptions, only states that choose to meet the
requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are
allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One
exception is for states that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model
rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered
trading programs. The other exception is for states that include all
non-EGUs from their NOX SIP Call trading programs in their
CAIR NOX ozone season trading programs.

IV. What Are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?

    States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures
they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that
most states will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an
option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR
cap-and-trade programs. For such states, EPA has provided two
approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP
revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model
CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these SIP revisions will fully
replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, states may submit abbreviated SIP
revisions. These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however,
the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these
abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of, or in conjunction
with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs
(e.g., the NOX allowance allocation methodology).
    A state submitting an abbreviated SIP revision may submit limited
SIP revisions to tailor the CAIR FIP cap-and-trade program as it
applies in their state. Specifically, an abbreviated SIP revision may
establish certain applicability and allowance allocation provisions
that will be used instead of, or in conjunction with, the corresponding
provisions in the CAIR FIP rules in that state. Specifically, the
abbreviated SIP revisions may:
    1. Include NOX SIP Call trading sources that are not
EGUs under CAIR in the CAIR FIP NOX ozone season trading
program;
    2. Provide for allocation of NOX annual or
NOX ozone season allowances by the state, rather than the

Administrator, using a methodology chosen by the state;
    3. Provide for allocation of NOX annual allowances from
the CSP by the state, rather than by the Administrator, using the
state's choice of allowed, alternative methodologies; or
    4. Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt
individually into the CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs under the opt-in
provisions in the CAIR FIP rules.

With approval of an abbreviated SIP revision, the CAIR FIP remains in
place, as tailored to sources in the state by that approved SIP
revision.
    Abbreviated SIP revisions can be submitted in lieu of, or as part
of, CAIR full SIP revisions. States may want to designate part of their
full SIP as an abbreviated SIP for EPA to act on first when the timing
of the state's submission might not provide EPA with sufficient time to
approve the full SIP prior to the deadline for recording NOX
allocations. This will help ensure that the elements of the trading
programs where flexibility is allowed are implemented according to the
state's decisions. Submission of an abbreviated SIP revision does not
preclude future submission of a CAIR full SIP revision. In this case,
the June 19, 2007, submittal from Wisconsin has been submitted as an
abbreviated SIP revision.

V. Analysis of Wisconsin's CAIR SIP Submittal

A. Nature of Wisconsin's Submittal

    On June 19, 2007, Wisconsin submitted a request to process their
draft rules for addressing CAIR requirements. The Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (WDNR) held hearings on these proposed rules on
October 10 and October 12, 2006. The 30-day public comment period for
the proposed rules ended on October 23, 2006.

B. Summary of Wisconsin's Rules

    Chapter NR 432 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapters
Related to Air Pollution Control, entitled ``Allocation of Clean Air
Interstate Rule NOX Allowances,'' includes provisions
addressing utility emissions of NOX. These rules are
designed to address the requirements of the CAIR.
    Chapter NR 432 includes eight subparts:

1. NR 432.01 Applicability; purpose
2. NR 432.02 Definitions
3. NR 432.03 CAIR NOX allowance allocation
4. NR 432.04 Compliance supplement pool
5. NR 432.05 CAIR NOX ozone season allowance allocation
6. NR 432.06 Timing requirements for allocations of CAIR NOX
allowances and CAIR NOX ozone season allowances
7. NR 432.07 CAIR renewable units
8. NR 432.08 Superior environmental performance

    Subchapter NR 432.01 entitled, ``Applicability; purpose''
consolidates the applicability and purpose section for both the annual
and ozone season trading programs. While the FIP already contains an
applicability section, the state is required to adopt this section to
satisfy its own rulemaking requirements. Wisconsin is adopting the
applicability section to apply only to the allocation methodology in
their rule but this does not affect the applicability of the CAIR FIP.
    Subchapter NR 432.02 entitled, ``Definitions'' adopts many of the
CAIR FIP definitions but is rewritten in a format to conform to the
state's regulatory writing style requirements. While the FIP already
contains a definitions section, the state is required to adopt this
section to satisfy its own rulemaking requirements. Wisconsin is
adopting the definition section to apply only to the allocation
methodology in their rule but this does not affect the applicability of
the CAIR FIP. Additionally, WDNR has added definitions not found in the
CAIR FIP. These definitions are included to address the fact that
Wisconsin's rule allocates allowances to renewable energy sources,
which the FIP does not do, and to address the fact that Wisconsin
allocates allowances to emitting sources based on energy output rather
than heat input. The CAIR FIP uses a heat input based allocation
methodology.
    Subchapter NR 432.03 entitled, ``CAIR NOX allowance
allocation'' contains the state's annual NOX allowance
allocation methodology. The state rule uses gross electrical output as
the basis for calculating the number of allowances existing sources
should be allocated. Also included in the allocation methodology are
renewable energy units.
    Subchapter NR 432.04 entitled, ``Compliance supplement pool''
allocates a limited number of allowances to sources that make early
reductions and to sources that can make a demonstration that electric
reliability will be compromised.
    Subchapter NR 432.05 entitled, ``CAIR NOX ozone season
allowance allocation'' contains the state's ozone season NOX
allowance allocation methodology. The state rule uses gross electrical
output as the basis for calculating the number of allowances existing
sources that should be allocated. Also included in the allocation
methodology are renewable energy units.
    Subchapter NR 432.06 entitled, ``Timing requirements for
allocations of CAIR NOX allowances and CAIR NOX
ozone season allowances'' consolidates the timing requirements for
issuance of NOX allowances for both the annual and ozone
season programs.
    Subchapter NR 432.07 entitled, ``CAIR renewable units'' was added
by Wisconsin to address renewable energy units. Under the CAIR FIP, EPA
did not allocate allowances for renewable energy units. Wisconsin has
chosen to allocate both NOX annual and NOX ozone
season allowances to renewable units. NR 432.07 requires renewable
units to comply with the same trading requirements that the regulated
EGUs comply with, such as designating an account representative who
represents the unit in any trading activity, and establishing accounts
for the NOX trading programs and the process for requesting
NOX allowances.
    Subchapter NR 432.08 entitled, ``Superior environmental
performance'' offers regulatory flexibility to sources that enter into
voluntary agreements to reduce emissions of NOX,
SO2, mercury, carbon dioxide, or heavy metals beyond levels
required by Federal and state laws.

C. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone season budgets were
developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data,
EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values,
which were multiplied by 0.15 lb/mmBtu for phase 1, and 0.125 lb/mmBtu
for phase 2, to obtain regional NOX budgets for 2009-2014
and for 2015 and thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the state
NOX annual and NOX ozone season budgets from the
regional budgets using state heat input data adjusted by fuel factors.
    The CAIR state SO2 budgets were derived by discounting
the tonnage of emissions authorized by annual allowance allocations
under the Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA. Under CAIR, each
allowance allocated under the Acid Rain Program for the years in phase
1 of CAIR (2010 through 2014) authorizes 0.5 ton of SO2
emissions in the CAIR trading program, and each Acid Rain Program
allowance allocated for the years in phase 2 of CAIR (2015 and
thereafter) authorizes 0.35 ton of SO2 emissions in the CAIR
trading program.

    The CAIR FIP established the budgets for Wisconsin as 40,759 tons
for NOX annual emissions for 2009-2014, 33,966 tons for
NOX annual emissions for 2015 and beyond, 17,987 tons for
NOX ozone season emissions for 2010-2014, 14,989 tons for
NOX ozone season emissions for 2015 and beyond, 87,264 tons
for SO2 emissions for 2010-2014, and 61,085 tons for
SO2 emissions for 2015 and beyond. Wisconsin's SIP revision,
proposed for approval in today's action, does not affect these budgets,
which are total amounts of allowances available for allocation for each
year under the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs under the CAIR
FIP. In short, the abbreviated SIP revision only affects allocations of
allowances under the established budgets.

D. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

    The CAIR NOX annual and NOX ozone season FIPs
both largely mirror the structure of the NOX SIP Call model
trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the
provisions of the NOX annual and NOX ozone season
FIPs are similar, there are some differences. For example, the
NOX annual FIP (but not the NOX ozone season FIP)
provides for a CSP, which is discussed below and under which allowances
may be awarded for early reductions of NOX annual emissions.
As a further example, the NOX ozone season FIP reflects the
fact that the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program replaces
the NOX SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season
and is coordinated with the NOX SIP Call program. The
NOX ozone season FIP provides incentives for early emissions
reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009 NOX SIP Call
allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NOX ozone-
season trading program. In addition, states have the option of
continuing to meet their NOX SIP Call requirement by
participating in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program
and including all their NOX SIP Call trading sources in that
program.
    The provisions of the CAIR SO2 FIP are also similar to
the provisions of the NOX annual and ozone season FIPs.
However, the SO2 FIP is coordinated with the ongoing Acid
Rain SO2 cap-and-trade program under CAA Title IV. The
SO2 FIP uses the Title IV allowances for compliance, with
each allowance allocated for 2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of
emissions and each allowance allocated for 2015 and thereafter
authorizing only 0.35 ton of emissions. Banked Title IV allowances
allocated for years before 2010 can be used at any time in the CAIR
SO2 cap-and-trade program, with each such allowance
authorizing 1 ton of emissions. Title IV allowances are to be freely
transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain Program and sources
covered by the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program.
    EPA used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading
programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually
identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account
for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to
work together as integrated SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs.
    Wisconsin is subject to the CAIR FIP for ozone and
PM2.5, and the CAIR FIP trading programs for SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season apply to sources
in Wisconsin. Consistent with the flexibility it gives to states, the
CAIR FIP provides that states may submit abbreviated SIP revisions that
will replace or supplement, as appropriate, certain provisions of the
CAIR FIP trading programs. The June 19, 2007 submission of Wisconsin is
such an abbreviated SIP revision.

E. Applicability Provisions for Non-EGU NOX SIP Call Sources

    In general, the CAIR FIP trading programs apply to any stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion
turbine serving at any time, since the latter of November 15, 1990, or
the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with
nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale.
    States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NOX
ozone season program only, those units in the state's NOX
SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR. EPA
advises states exercising this option to use provisions for
applicability that are substantively identical to the provisions in 40
CFR 96.304, and add the applicability provisions in the state's
NOX SIP Call trading rule for non-EGUs to the applicability
provisions in 40 CFR 96.304, in order to include in the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program all units required to be in
the state's NOX SIP Call trading program that are not
already included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this option, the CAIR
NOX ozone season program must cover all large industrial
boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. units
serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less), that
the state currently requires to be in the NOX SIP Call
trading program.
    Because Wisconsin was not included in the NOX SIP Call
trading program, Wisconsin did not have an option of expanding the
applicability provisions of the CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program.

F. NOX Allowance Allocations

    Under the NOX allowance allocation methodology in the
CAIR model trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NOX annual and
NOX ozone season allowances are allocated to units that have
operated for five years, based on heat input data from a three-year
period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors of 1.0 for
coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model trading
rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from which
units without five years of operation are allocated allowances based on
the units' prior year emissions.
    The CAIR FIP provides states the flexibility to establish a
different NOX allowance allocation methodology that will be
used to allocate allowances to sources in the states if certain
requirements are met concerning the timing of submission of units'
allocations to the Administrator for recordation and the total amount
of allowances allocated for each control period. In adopting
alternative NOX allowance allocation methodologies, states
have flexibility with regard to:
    1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be
distributed for free or auctioned;
    2. The frequency of allocations;
    3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed,
for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal
output; and
    4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the CAIR FIP,
Wisconsin has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual FIP concerning the allocation of NOX
annual allowances with its own methodology. NR 432.03 contains the
provisions for the NOX annual allowance distribution
methodology Wisconsin has adopted. Wisconsin has chosen to distribute
NOX annual allowances based upon gross electrical output.
Where the CAIR FIP allocates allowances to NOX emitting
sources only and does so on a fuel-weighted basis (as mentioned above),
Wisconsin's rule eliminates that fuel weighting and allocates
allowances to renewable energy units as well. For units that have
operated for five or more consecutive years, the three highest annual
amounts of the unit's gross electrical output will be the basis for
determining that unit's allocations.

Wisconsin has created a new unit set-aside for sources that have fewer
than five years of operating data. The new unit set-aside is equal to
seven percent of the total trading budget. The number of NOX
annual allocations a new unit can request from the new unit set-aside
is limited by the number of the unit's total tons of NOX
emissions during the calendar year immediately before the calendar year
of the request. Updating of unit baselines for allocation purposes
occurs every five years beginning in 2011. The initial allocation of
allowances for the years 2009-2014 is set forth in NR 432.03.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the CAIR FIP,
Wisconsin has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX ozone season FIP concerning allowance allocations with
their own methodology. NR 432.05 contains the provisions for the
NOX ozone season allowance distribution methodology
Wisconsin has adopted. Wisconsin has chosen to distribute
NOX ozone season allowances based upon gross electrical
output where the CAIR FIP allocates allowances to NOX
emitting sources only and does so on a fuel-weighted basis (as
mentioned above); Wisconsin's rule eliminates that fuel weighting and
allocates allowances to renewable energy units as well. For units that
have operated for five or more consecutive years, the three highest
ozone season amounts of the unit's gross electrical output will be the
basis for determining that unit's allocations. Wisconsin has created a
new unit set-aside for sources that have fewer than five years of
operating data. The new unit set-aside is equal to seven percent of the
total trading budget. The number of NOX ozone season
allocations a new unit can request from the new unit set-aside is
limited by the number of the unit's total tons of NOX
emissions during the ozone season immediately before the calendar year
of the request. Updating of unit baselines for allocation purposes
occurs every five years beginning in 2011. The initial allocation of
allowances for the years 2009-2014 is set forth in NR 432.05.
    Since Wisconsin has chosen to allocate both NOX annual
and NOX ozone season allowances to renewable energy units,
the state has adopted provisions specifically for these sources to
comply with. These provisions are found in NR 432.07 which requires
renewable units to comply with the same trading requirements that the
regulated EGUs comply with, such as designating an account
representative who represents the unit in any trading activity, and
establishing accounts for the NOX trading programs and the
process for requesting NOX allowances.

G. Allocation of NOX Allowances From the Compliance
Supplement Pool

    The CSP provides an incentive for early reductions in
NOX annual emissions. The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR
NOX annual allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR
region, and a state's share of the CSP is based upon the state's share
of the projected emission reductions under CAIR. States may distribute
CSP allowances, one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to
sources that make NOX reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond
what is required by any applicable state or Federal emission
limitation. States also may distribute CSP allowances based upon a
demonstration of need for an extension of the 2009 deadline for
implementing emission controls.
    The CAIR NOX annual FIP establishes specific
methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances. States may choose an
allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate
CSP allowances to sources in those states. See 40 CFR 51.123(p)(2)
(requiring that State CSP provisions be consistent with the model rule
at 40 CFR 96.143, the FIP at 40 CFR 97.143, or CAIR at 40 CFR
51.123(e)(4)).
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIP,
Wisconsin has chosen to modify the provisions of the CAIR
NOX annual FIP concerning the allocation of allowances from
the CSP. NR 432.04 contains the provisions Wisconsin has adopted for
distribution of the CSP. Wisconsin has chosen to distribute CSP
allowances based on early reduction credits or based on the need to
avoid undue risk to electric reliability. The first methodology based
on early reduction credits essentially mirrors the FIP's early
reduction credit methodology.
    The description in Wisconsin's rule of the second methodology based
on need is somewhat unclear. EPA interprets the provision to require a
demonstration that a unit cannot avoid undue risk to electric
reliability if it keeps its emissions in 2009 from exceeding its 2009
allowance allocation. Even if the unit could obtain additional
allowances to cover emissions above its allocation, and thereby comply
with the requirement to hold allowances covering emissions, the unit
could be given CSP allowances. In contrast, EPA's CSP provisions in the
model rule, the FIP, and CAIR require a demonstration that, without
being given CSP allowances, a unit cannot avoid undue risk while
keeping its 2009 emissions from exceeding all the allowances it holds,
both its 2009 allowance allocations and other allowances it can obtain
for compliance. Thus, Wisconsin's provision is inconsistent with EPA's
CSP provisions. Moreover, since Wisconsin's entire CSP is available for
units meeting either the early reduction credit or the undue risk
criteria, the early reduction credit and undue risk provisions cannot
be administered separately, and the Wisconsin CSP must be administered
by a single agency. Consequently, EPA proposes to disapprove all of
Wisconsin's CSP provisions. This portion of Wisconsin's SIP submittal
is separable from the rest of the submittal and can be disapproved
without compromising the integrity of the portion where we are
proposing approval.
    In the absence of approved CSP provisions in an abbreviated CAIR
SIP, the FIP provisions for the allocation of CSP allowances would
continue to apply. Therefore, with the disapproval of Wisconsin's CSP
provisions providing for distribution of the CSP the FIP CSP provisions
would continue to apply in Wisconsin.

H. Individual Opt-In Units

    The opt-in provisions allow for certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers,
combustion turbines, and other stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices)
that do not meet the applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program
to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading
program. A non-EGU may opt into one or more of the CAIR trading
programs. In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR trading program, a
unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be able to meet
monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40 CFR part
75. The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading
program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a
CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated
allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions
monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the
CAIR trading program. The opt-in provisions provide for two
methodologies for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one
methodology that applies to opt-in units in general and a second
methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units that the
owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.
    States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions. The
rules for each of the CAIR FIP trading programs include opt-in
provisions that

are essentially the same as those in the respective CAIR SIP model
rules, except that the CAIR FIP opt-in provisions become effective in a
state only if the state's abbreviated SIP revision adopts the opt-in
provisions. The state may adopt the opt-in provisions entirely or may
adopt them but exclude one of the allowance allocation methodologies.
The state also has the option of not adopting any opt-in provisions in
the abbreviated SIP revision and thereby providing for the CAIR FIP
trading program to be implemented in the state without the ability for
units to opt into the program.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIP,
Wisconsin has chosen not to allow non-EGUs meeting certain requirements
to participate in the CAIR NOX annual trading program.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIP,
Wisconsin has chosen not to permit non-EGUs meeting certain
requirements to participate in the CAIR NOX ozone season
trading program.
    Consistent with the flexibility given to states in the FIPs,
Wisconsin has chosen not to allow certain non-EGUs to opt into the CAIR
SO2 trading program.

I. Additional Provisions Found in Wisconsin's Abbreviated CAIR SIP
Submittal

    In addition to the already mentioned portions of Wisconsin's rules
that have been submitted as part of the abbreviated CAIR SIP, Wisconsin
has two other provisions.
    NR 432.06 describes the timing requirements for allocating both
NOX annual allowances and NOX ozone season
allowances. These requirements are consistent with the timing
requirements for allocating allowances under an abbreviated SIP
scenario found in 40 CFR 51.123 and are, therefore, being proposed for
approval.
    NR 432.08 would allow sources to make voluntary reductions beyond
state and Federal requirements in exchange for regulatory flexibility.
For the reasons discussed above, we are proposing to disapprove this
portion of Wisconsin's CAIR abbreviated SIP. This portion is separable
from the rest of Wisconsin's SIP submittal and can be disapproved
without compromising the integrity of the portion where we are
proposing approval.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
Wisconsin's abbreviated CAIR SIP revision submitted on June 19, 2007.
Wisconsin is covered by the CAIR FIP, which requires participation in
the EPA-administered CAIR FIP cap-and-trade programs for
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
emissions. Under this abbreviated SIP revision and consistent with the
flexibility given to states in the FIP, Wisconsin adopts provisions for
allocating allowances under the CAIR FIP NOX annual and
NOX ozone season trading programs. As provided for in the
CAIR FIP, these provisions in the abbreviated SIP revision will replace
or supplement the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIP in
Wisconsin. These provisions in Wisconsin's abbreviated SIP revision
meet the applicable requirements in 40 CFR 51.123(p) and (ee), with
regard to NOX annual and NOX ozone season
emissions. EPA is not proposing to make any changes to the CAIR FIP,
but is proposing, to the extent EPA approves Wisconsin's SIP revision,
to amend the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP trading rules
simply to note that approval.
    Wisconsin's submittal also contains provisions that are
inconsistent with requirements concerning the CSP and that grant
unacceptable regulatory flexibility to some sources. EPA is proposing
to disapprove these portions of Wisconsin's rule. We are able to
propose disapproval of these specific portions of Wisconsin's submittal
because they are separable from the rest of Wisconsin's submittal and
disapproving only these parts has no effect on the rest of the
submittal that we are proposing to approve.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements
and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under state law and would not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain
any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Public Law 104-4).
    This proposal also does not have tribal implications because it
would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it would 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal
standard and to amend the appropriate appendices in the CAIR FIP
trading rules to note that approval. It does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it would
approve a State rule implementing a Federal Standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule would
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric
utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

40 CFR Part 97

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Electric
utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

    Dated: July 18, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
 [FR Doc. E7-14465 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 9579]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03980]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-0024]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Helicopters
West Aerospace LLC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before March 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0430
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Ngo<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2016.
Dale A. Bouffiou,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-0430.
    Petitioner: Helicopters West Aerospace LLC.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 45.27 (a), 61.113(a) and (b),
91.7(a), 91.105, 91.119 (c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 91.405(a),
91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (a)(2), and 91.417(a) and (b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner requests to operate a
small unmanned aircraft system over land and/or water to photograph
sporting events, entertainment and news gathering events for the
general public and purchase by sports, entertainment, and media
organizations.

[FR Doc. 2016-03980 Filed 2-24-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9709-9714]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3861]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter I

[EPA-09-0W-2010-0976-FRL-9268-5]
RIN-2009-ZA00

Water Quality Challenges in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta Estuary

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to seek comments from
interested parties on possible EPA actions to address water quality
conditions affecting aquatic resources in the San Francisco Bay/
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay Delta Estuary) in California.
EPA is asking the public to consider broadly whether EPA should be
taking new or different actions under its programs to address recent
significant declines in multiple aquatic species in the Bay Delta
Estuary. EPA is not limiting its request to actions that would require
rulemaking. There may be a range of changes in EPA's activities in the
Bay Delta Estuary that would be constructive, including enforcement,
research, revisions to water quality standards, etc. EPA will consider
all comments before deciding what changes, if any, should be pursued.
After reviewing the comments and completing its evaluation, EPA will
provide the results of its review and any proposed next steps to the
public. This ANPR identifies specific issues on which EPA solicits
comment, including potential site-specific water quality standards and
site-specific changes to pesticide regulation. In addition to the
specific issues on which EPA solicits comments, EPA is interested in
comments on any other aspects of EPA's programs affecting Bay Delta
Estuary aquatic resources. This notice contains a summary version of
the ANPR. Information on accessing the unabridged version is included
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted by April 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Written comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OW-
2010-0976, may be submitted electronically at the Federal Rulemaking
Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Hard copy comments should be
addressed to Erin Foresman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75
Hawthorne Street, WTR-3, San Francisco, California 94105. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file formats and other information about
filing.
    Filing Instructions: All comments will be included in the public
docket without change and will be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Regulations.gov is an ``anonymous
access'' system and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. 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 in either location
(e.g., confidential business information). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with Erin Foresman<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(916) 557-5253.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Foresman at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, Water Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(916) 557-5253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Detailed information describing the current
state of Bay Delta Estuary aquatic resources, summaries of scientific
knowledge regarding Bay Delta Estuary water quality stressors, and
water quality regulatory and non-regulatory activities in the Bay Delta
Estuary is contained in the Unabridged ANPR provided on EPA Region 9's
Web site (http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/watershed/sfbay-delta/index.html) and in the electronic docket available at http://

www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA-R09-OW-2010-0976. EPA suggests
reviewing this document prior to submitting comments.
    This ANPR has no regulatory impact or effect. The ANPR contains
descriptions of certain EPA programs relevant to the Bay Delta Estuary
and poses questions about how these programs could better protect and
improve water quality for the benefit of aquatic resources in the Bay
Delta Estuary. This ANPR marks the beginning of a process to consider
possible changes to EPA programs in the Bay Delta Estuary.
    If EPA decides to pursue regulatory changes as a result of this
ANPR, those regulatory changes will be made pursuant to appropriate
formal rulemaking procedures. If changes to any regulations, rules,
guidance or statutes are proposed and ultimately made final, to the
extent such changes would require and/or authorize changes to state or
tribal water quality standards or other regulations, states or
authorized tribes would be affected. If changes to state or tribal
regulations result from any final rule that EPA may promulgate in the
future, entities subject to compliance with state or tribal regulations
would also potentially be affected. For example, states and tribes
authorized to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit Program would need to ensure that permits they
issue include any limitations on discharges necessary to comply with
any water quality standards established as a result of any subsequent
final rulemaking. Therefore, entities discharging pollutants to waters
of the United States under NPDES could be affected by subsequent
proposed and final rulemaking.

I. Purpose of This ANPR

    The Bay Delta Estuary is a complex web of waterways, islands, and
levees at the junction of the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Rivers.\1\ The Bay Delta Estuary is the hub of California's
water distribution system, supplying some or all of the drinking water
to 25 million people and irrigation water to 4 million acres of
farmland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There is no commonly accepted precise geographic definition
of the Bay Delta Estuary. The ``legal Delta'' is well-defined for
purposes of the California Delta Protection Commission and related
California statutes, but is not co-terminous with the functioning
estuary. This ANPR will generally refer to the larger estuary
upstream of the San Francisco Bay as the Bay Delta Estuary or the
Estuary. It will also refer to the Delta, which usually means the
``legal Delta'' plus Suisun Marsh and Suisun Bay. Occasionally, this
ANPR may also reference the Bay Delta Estuary watershed, which is a
huge land area that includes the drainages of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin River basins.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Water quality and aquatic resources in the Bay Delta Estuary are
under serious stress. All of the waters of the Bay Delta Estuary and
most of its tributaries are listed as impaired for one or more
parameters under the federal Clean Water Act.\2\ Populations of many
formerly abundant open-water (i.e., pelagic) fish species, including
delta smelt, longfin smelt, and threadfin shad, have collapsed in
recent decades. Anadromous \3\ fishes, including the winter run chinook
salmon, have suffered a similar decline. The decline of these aquatic
resources has generated debate over water resource management in the
Bay Delta Estuary. Delta interests, including state and federal
agencies, environmental groups, urban and agricultural water users,
commercial and recreational fishermen, and others have spent many years
grappling with Bay Delta Estuary resource issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1281-1387 (2006).
    \3\ ``Anadromous'' species are those, such as chinook salmon and
steelhead, that spend at least some of their life cycle in salt
water. Usually, these species return to freshwater to spawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Concerns regarding Bay Delta Estuary water resource management
increased during the 2009 water year \4\ as water users and resource
managers struggled with the effects of three years of drought. Water
export limitations caused by the drought and by restrictions imposed
under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) \5\ to assist struggling
endangered species significantly reduced the availability of water for
agricultural and urban uses.\6\ At the same time, the salmon fishery
was closed on most of the West Coast for a second consecutive year as a
result of declines in that fishery. Both the agricultural and fishery
sectors suffered job losses as a result of the drought and the water
export restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Water years in California are defined as October 1 through
the following September 30. For example, the 2011 water year began
October 1, 2010 and continues through September 30, 2011. Water
years in California are categorized based on the particular rainfall
that year. The categories are wet, above normal, below normal, dry,
and critically dry.
    \5\ Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 (2006).
    \6\ See Cal. Dep't of Water Res. & Bureau of Reclamation, Water
Supply Conditions 2009 (Aug., 2009), available at http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2009/08122009martinmilligan2.pdf
(suggests that approximately a quarter (500 thousand acre feet) of
the 2.1 million acre feet water export shortfall in 2009 was due to
new environmental restrictions, whereas three quarters (1.6 million
acre feet) of the shortfall was due to the drought itself).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The federal government responded to this ongoing water management
crisis with a broad set of actions.\7\ One of those actions was the
creation of the Federal Bay Delta Leadership Committee, a Cabinet-
level, multi-agency committee charged with coordinating federal
responses to Bay Delta Estuary issues.\8\ The Federal Bay Delta
Leadership Committee released its Interim Federal Action Plan for the
California Bay-Delta (Federal Action Plan) on December 22, 2009,
outlining the federal government's plan to address the Bay Delta
Estuary and to work with the State of California to build a sustainable
water future.\9\ The Federal Action Plan includes actions by EPA to
``assess the effectiveness of the current regulatory mechanisms
designed to protect water quality in the Delta and its tributaries,
including standards for toxics, nutrients, and estuarine habitat
protection.'' EPA will also evaluate voluntary mechanisms that may be
used to restore water quality in the Bay Delta Estuary. This ANPR is
the beginning of this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Press Release, U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Secretary
Salazar, Senior Administration and Congressional Officials Hold Town
Hall Meeting on California Water Shortage (June 28, 2009), available
at http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/2009_06_28_release.cfm
(discussing several water augmentation initiatives).
    \8\ California Bay-Delta Memorandum of Understanding among
Federal Agencies (Sept. 29, 2009), available at http://www.doi.gov/documents/BayDeltaMOUSigned.pdf.
    \9\ Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta
(Dec. 22, 2009), available at http://www.doi.gov/documents/CAWaterWorkPlan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New scientific information about the Bay Delta Estuary and its
aquatic resources has substantially increased in the past few years.
This information has been developed and/or reviewed in reports \10\
synthesizing information on aquatic resources and water quality by the
following entities: the State/Federal Interagency Ecological Program
Pelagic Organism Decline science team,\11\ the State's Delta Vision
Blue Ribbon Task Force, the Public Policy Institute of California, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service as
part of their biological opinions and associated independent science
reviews, the California State Water Resources Control Board (State
Board) and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Central Valley RWQCB).\12\ Most of these studies and reports involve
resources protected

under the Clean Water Act and other EPA programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Citations to these many reports and reviews are provided in
the Unabridged ANPR, as each issue is discussed in detail.
    \11\ Randall Baxter, et al., Pelagic Organism Decline Progress
Report: 2010 Synthesis of Results (2010), available at http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/docs/FinalPOD2010Workplan12610.pdf.
    \12\ The State Board, Central Valley RWQCB, and San Francisco
Regional Water Quality Control Board (San Francisco RWQCB) will
sometimes be referred to collectively as the ``Water Boards.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is using this ANPR to solicit and synthesize existing
scientific information regarding the biological, chemical, and physical
integrity of the Bay Delta Estuary's aquatic resources. EPA will
comprehensively review this information as it evaluates its statutory
and regulatory options in the Bay Delta Estuary and will develop an
appropriate response. Specifically, the purposes of this ANPR are:
    (1) To review the current status of the EPA and Water Boards' \13\
responses to adverse water quality conditions that have been identified
as potential contributors to the Bay Delta Estuary's aquatic resources
decline;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Much of EPA's statutory mandate is to perform oversight and
review of state water quality agency activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) To determine how best to implement existing programs under the
Clean Water Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act \14\ to improve Bay Delta Estuary water quality for aquatic
resources;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7
U.S.C. 136-136y (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) To identify barriers, either programmatic or statutory, to
improving Bay Delta Estuary water quality;
    (4) To identify any additional scientific information regarding
water quality related to aquatic resources in the Bay Delta Estuary;
and
    (5) To solicit input on whether EPA should be taking new or
different actions under its programs to address aquatic resource
problems in the Bay Delta Estuary.
    Specific topics on which EPA is requesting comments appear in the
sections below.

Related Efforts in the Bay Delta Estuary

    There are several major efforts underway to address Bay Delta
Estuary resources, including the regulatory programs of the Water
Boards under state and federal water quality statutes. In July 2008,
the Water Boards adopted a Strategic Workplan to coordinate and guide
their Bay Delta Estuary activities.\15\ Over the next several years,
these state activities will include, among others, multiple point
source permit renewals, new pollutant and flow standards for the
southern Delta and lower San Joaquin River, and Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) for pesticides in the Central Valley. EPA continues to
support many of the elements in the State's Workplan through technical
and financial assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ State Water Res. Control Bd., Cent. Valley Water Bd., & San
Francisco Bay Water Bd., Strategic Workplan for Activities in the
San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (2008),
available at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/strategic_plan/docs/baydelta_workplan_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any EPA action taken as a result of this ANPR will complement the
Water Boards' actions, as EPA's priority is to support and augment
these efforts. As these efforts unfold, EPA will monitor their progress
and determine whether additional actions, consistent with its statutory
authorities and responsibilities, are needed to ensure that the
requirements of the Clean Water Act are satisfied. Finally, regardless
of whether EPA pursues any new actions as a result of this ANPR, EPA
believes the information gathered through the ANPR process may provide
a factual basis for EPA's ongoing activities under the Clean Water Act,
the National Environmental Policy Act,\16\ and other federal statutes
in the Bay Delta Estuary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are other federal and state water resource planning efforts
underway in the Bay Delta Estuary. Stakeholders and relevant government
agencies are engaged in developing the Bay Delta Conservation Plan
(BDCP) under the federal Endangered Species Act and the California
Natural Community Conservation Plan Act.\17\ The BDCP focuses on the
recovery of ESA-listed species and their habitat in the Bay Delta
Estuary and is expected to include major proposals for changing how
water is diverted and conveyed through the Bay Delta Estuary to the
state and federal water export facilities in the south Delta.\18\ The
EPA's responsibilities under the Clean Water Act to protect designated
uses, such as estuarine habitat, fish migration, and threatened and
endangered species, overlap with ESA requirements being addressed in
the BDCP. Some actions taken pursuant to the BDCP will need to comply
with both the ESA and Clean Water Act. To that end, EPA will ensure
that any action it might take as a result of this ANPR will be closely
coordinated with other federal and state actions related to the BDCP,
any biological opinions on water operations affecting the Bay Delta
Estuary, and any other actions requiring ESA compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Natural Community Conservation Plan Act, Cal. Fish & Game
Code Sec.  2800-2835 (2003).
    \18\ Although the scope of the BDCP covers at least nine listed
aquatic species and a geographic area of over one-half million
acres, the BDCP is not intended to be a comprehensive Delta recovery
plan. By its own terms, it is intended to meet ESA requirements by
addressing only the operations of the state and federal water export
projects and their impacts on listed species and their habitat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, recent state legislation has established the Delta
Stewardship Council (DSC), an independent state agency charged with
developing a comprehensive resource management plan, the Delta Plan, by
January 2012.\19\ The Delta Plan is intended to guide state and local
agencies to help achieve the state's coequal goals of a reliable water
supply and a restored Delta ecosystem. To inform the Delta Plan, the
DSC's Independent Science Board will evaluate the multiple stressors in
the Bay Delta Estuary.\20\ Any EPA action taken as a result of this
ANPR will also be coordinated with this and other related efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Cal. Water Code Sec.  85300-85350 (2010).
    \20\ Letter from Delta Independent Science Board to Phil
Isenberg, Chair, Delta Stewardship Council (Jan. 26, 2011),
available at http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta_science_program/pdf/isb/d-isb_20110126_stressor_short_memo_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has initiated a review of
some aspects of the science supporting ESA protections in the Bay Delta
Estuary. Much of that scientific information is also relevant to Clean
Water Act programs. Accordingly, EPA is coordinating with the NAS to
assure that scientific evaluations serve the multiple regulatory
programs in the Bay Delta Estuary.

Scope of This ANPR

    This ANPR is focused on the most significant water quality factors
adversely affecting aquatic species designated uses in the Bay Delta
Estuary. Aquatic species, specifically the salmonids and pelagic
species suffering significant population collapse during the last
decade, brought the Bay Delta Estuary's water resource management
issues into sharp focus in recent years. EPA recognizes that the Bay
Delta Estuary supports over 750 species of fish, mammals, birds,
reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and plants, and that forty or more
of these species are listed under state and/or federal endangered
species laws.\21\ This ANPR is focused on aquatic species designated
uses for waterbodies in the Bay Delta Estuary, but welcomes comment on
how

other species are being affected by water quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force, Delta Vision Strategic
Plan (Oct. 2008), available at http://deltavision.ca.gov/StrategicPlanningProcess/StaffDraft/Delta_Vision_Strategic_Plan_standard_resolution.pdf; Estimate of federal and state endangered
and threatened species based on discussion with U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service biologists; Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Steering Committee
Working Draft (Nov. 18, 2010), available at http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Whats_in_Plan/draft_BDCPreport_11292010_ClickableLinks7.pdf; CALFED Bay Delta Program,
Multi-Species Conservation Strategy, Final Programmatic EIS (July 7,
2000), available at http://dfg.ca.gov/erp/envcomp_mscs.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This ANPR does not comprehensively discuss water quality issues
related to other designated uses, including drinking water, recreation,
fish consumption, agriculture, etc. For example, water contact has been
restricted in certain Bay Delta Estuary waters due to toxic blue-green
algae blooms. EPA acknowledges the ongoing need to address these other
issues.

II. Program Areas for Public Comment

    In this ANPR, EPA is asking the public to consider broadly whether
EPA should take new or different actions under its programs to address
problems in the Bay Delta Estuary. EPA is not limiting its request to
actions that would require actual rulemaking; there may be a range of
changes in EPA's activities in the Bay Delta Estuary that would be
constructive, including enforcement, research, revisions to water
quality standards, etc. Any change in EPA activities would be dependent
on existing authority and the availability of existing or new
resources. Any changes requiring EPA rulemaking would provide for
public comment through the notice and comment rulemaking process.
    A substantial amount of research was performed and evaluated in
connection with the scientific review of the pelagic organism decline.
As noted above, that process identified a number of potential stressors
affecting the Bay Delta Estuary aquatic ecosystem. Many of those
potential stressors are directly or indirectly affected by the EPA
programs described above. EPA has identified certain topics for more
focused consideration in this ANPR. These are:

--Ammonia
--Selenium
--Pesticides
--Contaminants of Emerging Concern
--Estuarine Habitat
--Fish Migration Corridors
--Wetlands

    EPA has not made any attempt to rank these topics as to their
importance in resolving Bay Delta Estuary issues.\22\ EPA's preliminary
evaluation suggests that each of these topics, if addressed, could
contribute to a resolution of Bay Delta Estuary resource conflicts.
While this ANPR discusses these topics separately, EPA is mindful that
the more significant concern is the cumulative and interactive effects
of multiple stressors on the Bay Delta Estuary's aquatic inhabitants.
Commenters may also identify additional topics that impact Bay Delta
Estuary resource management, if EPA has some programmatic involvement
in the topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The National Research Council panel currently evaluating
several Bay Delta Estuary science issues may be ``ranking'' factors
associated with the decline of ESA listed species and other at-risk
species. That ranking and the associated report is not due until
2011. Similarly, the Delta Independent Science Board has initiated a
process to evaluate and rank the relative importance of multiple
stressors and, especially, to consider the interactive effects of
these multiple stressors. See Delta Stressors Workshop, Meeting
Notice (Dec. 30, 2010), available at http://www.deltacouncil.ca.gov/delta_science_program/pdf/isb/d-isb_2011_01_workshop_stressors_mtg_notice_122810.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many activities discussed in this notice have been or are now the
subject of a formal or informal rulemaking process conducted by either
EPA or a related state or federal agency. Nothing in this notice is
intended to supersede those ongoing processes, nor does this notice
constitute a decision under any of those processes. If commenters have
submitted material in connection with those other processes that is
believed to be relevant to the issues raised in this notice, the
commenter may either reference the earlier submission (if it was
submitted to EPA), attach the earlier submission (if it was submitted
to a different agency), or, if appropriate, provide a link to the
material online. Please provide the reason(s) for answers to the
following questions and scientific, policy, and/or legal information
with citations that support your comments.

A. Contaminants

1. Contaminants--General
    a. Are there contaminants, other than those named above, causing
adverse impacts to aquatic resource designated uses in the Bay Delta
Estuary and that should receive more focused review?
    b. How can pollutant-specific water quality criteria effectively
address or incorporate interactive effects between multiple
contaminants and other physical, chemical, and biological stressors?
    c. What methods can be used in developing and implementing TMDLs to
effectively address or incorporate interactive effects between multiple
contaminants and other physical, chemical, and biological stressors on
individual water bodies or for water bodies within a watershed?
    d. What information exists about how climate change impacts will
affect contaminant pollution (generally or for individual
contaminants)?
2. Ammonia: Toxic and Nutrient Effects
    a. What, if any, information is available on the sources or impacts
of total ammonia nitrogen in the Bay Delta Estuary that is not
reflected or cited above?
    b. Is there any information available that suggests site-specific
water quality standards for total ammonia nitrogen in the Bay Delta
Estuary may be more effective than current standards due to unique
hydrological, chemical, biological, or physical conditions?
    c. What information is needed to determine effective site-specific
water quality standards for total ammonia nitrogen, including narrative
or numeric criteria?
    d. What information is available on nonpoint sources of total
ammonia nitrogen and how they may most effectively and efficiently be
controlled?
3. Selenium
    a. What, if any, additional information is available to better
characterize selenium sources, loadings and impacts within the
watershed of the Bay Delta Estuary?
    b. What data, studies, and analytical techniques (for example,
models) could be used to improve our understanding of the physical
processes, including surface-groundwater interactions, controlling
selenium mobilization and transport to and within the Bay Delta
Estuary?
    c. What data are needed to track selenium impacts in the Bay Delta
ecosystem as currently configured, and to evaluate potential impacts of
selenium under changed flow and transport conditions into and within
the Delta?
    d. Are there additional selenium control methods or programs that
should be considered for reducing selenium inputs and impacts?
4. Pesticides
    a. What, if any, additional scientific information is available on
(a) the effects of pesticides in stormwater discharges, or (b) the
potential interactive effects of combinations of pesticides on aquatic
resources in the Bay Delta Estuary?
    b. What, if any, actions should EPA take under its authority to
improve the effectiveness of regulating pesticide contamination of the
Bay Delta Estuary watershed?
    c. How can the process for establishing numeric water quality
criteria be streamlined while maintaining technical integrity?
    d. What are the benefits and constraints of using fish tissue in
place of or in addition to water column concentrations when
establishing water quality criteria for pesticides?
    e. Are there testing protocols that would effectively and
efficiently identify synergistic toxic effects in the Bay Delta
Estuary?

    f. What, if any, specific combinations of contaminants are of
particular concern in the Bay Delta Estuary?
    g. Should EPA and our state partners move away from evaluating
isolated aquatic species for one or two pollutants, and towards
evaluations of water conditions more representative of the actual
aquatic conditions in the Bay Delta Estuary? How might this be done?
    h. What new or revised effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements or other permit requirements could be included in NPDES
permits for discharges of pesticides from Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (MS4s) in the Bay Delta Estuary in order to better meet
the regulatory standard of reducing discharges to the maximum extent
practicable? What information is necessary to determine permit
requirements, such as identifying effluent limits that can effectively
reduce ambient contaminant concentrations and restore designated uses?
Please provide any available information on water quality benefits that
may result from such requirements.
    i. What new or revised effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements or other permit requirements could be included in NPDES
permits for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity
and/or stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity to
address pesticides? What information is necessary to determine permit
requirements, such as identifying effluent limits that can effectively
reduce ambient contaminant concentrations and restore designated uses?
Please provide any available information on water quality benefits that
may result from such requirements.
    j. Should EPA use its residual designation authority at 40 CFR
122.35 to designate currently unregulated small MS4s to ensure that
municipalities have programs in place to control the discharge of
pesticides in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable? What
information is necessary to determine permit requirements, such as
identifying effluent limits that can effectively reduce ambient
contaminant concentrations and restore designated uses? Please provide
any available information on water quality benefits that may result
from such requirements.
    k. Should EPA use its residual designation authority at 40 CFR
122.26(a)(9)(i)(C)-(D) to designate currently unregulated stormwater
discharges that contribute pesticides to surface waters? What
information is necessary to determine permit requirements, such as
identifying effluent limits that can effectively reduce ambient
contaminant concentrations and restore designated uses? Please provide
any available information on water quality benefits that may result
from such requirements.
5. Contaminants of Emerging Concern
    a. What, if any, additional information is available regarding the
effects of CECs on aquatic resources in the Bay Delta Estuary?
    b. What, if any, specific information exists to identify the
sources and nature of discharges of CECs into the Bay Delta Estuary?
    c. What, if any, monitoring mechanisms or methodologies are
available to assist in identifying CECs?
    d. What, if any, methods are most effective to minimize
introduction of CECs into the Bay Delta Estuary?

B. Protecting Estuarine Habitat, Fish Migration Corridors and Wetlands

1. Estuarine Habitat
    a. What information is available on the effect of lower salinities
in the western Delta on undesirable species, such as Microcystis,
overbite clams, or jellyfish? What, if any, information is available to
determine if an increase in low salinity habitat would affect the fate,
concentration and distribution of nutrients and toxics that are
potentially negatively affecting the estuarine food web?
    b. Could the frequency, area, and/or duration of low salinity
habitat be changed so as to achieve ecosystem benefits for the suite of
species that use the low salinity zone? If so, how? Is historical data
on inter- or intra- annual frequency of variability the best basis for
setting goals or are there other bases that could be used? How might
climate change impacts, including sea level rise, affect the size,
frequency, and duration of low salinity habitat?
    c. Are methods available for more systematically addressing
ecological or biological connections between springtime locations of
low salinity habitat and subsequent conditions of the low salinity zone
in the fall? If so, what are they and what are their strengths and
weaknesses?
    d. Would changes in water system operations to move the low
salinity zone seaward in the fall adversely affect the reservoir
storage needed to conserve salmonid fish spawning and other designated
uses in the watershed? If so, under what conditions?
    e. What information is available on the effects of salinity
management on terrestrial plant communities and/or tidal marsh endemic
species? What indirect effect does this have on aquatic communities?
    f. Does the geographic location of low salinity habitat have an
effect on the quality of the habitat or its availability to species of
concern? If so, what is the nature and extent of such effect? Is the
distribution pattern of low salinity habitat important in determining
its quality?
    g. Are spring/neap differences in tidal water quality important for
aquatic species? If so, how should these habitat characteristics be
evaluated?
    h. How can performance measures for species population and/or
habitat condition be used to evaluate restoration of Bay Delta Estuary
water quality?
2. Fish Migration Corridors
    a. What role, if any, do gradients in physical and chemical
constituents of water play in the suitability of the Bay Delta Estuary
and San Joaquin River Basin migratory corridor for salmon?
    b. What are the best measures of success for restoration of a
migratory corridor? Could these measures be incorporated into new or
revised biological criteria protecting the fish migration designated
use?
    c. Should temporal characteristics be included in the definition of
the physical and/or chemical properties of a migration corridor based
on a reference condition? If so, how? What frequency and duration of
such a corridor is required for salmonids? How might these
characteristics change with the impacts of climate change?
    d. Would establishing a migratory corridor for upmigrating adult
chinook salmon succeed in improving adult migration success if
temperatures in the river channels upstream of Vernalis are unchanged?
If so, how? How might actions to establish a migratory corridor in the
south Delta also moderate temperature and/or dissolved oxygen problems
in the San Joaquin River?
    e. Are additional efforts to improve dissolved oxygen regimes in
the Delta necessary to provide an adequate migratory corridor for San
Joaquin salmonids? If so, what should those efforts include?
    f. What other information is available on the barriers to salmon
migration in the Bay Delta Estuary and San Joaquin River watershed?
3. Wetlands
    a. What different approaches under the Clean Water Act Section 404
program should EPA consider, in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, to improve the protection of aquatic resource functions
in the Bay Delta Estuary?

    b. What information exists that describes the relationship between
the quantity and quality of wetlands and Bay Delta Estuary water
quality and fish populations?
    c. In light of projected impacts of climate change (including sea
level rise and its effects on levee stability), what specific
activities can EPA undertake to improve long-term protection of
existing and future wetlands, especially those resources on subsided
islands?

III. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51,735, October 4, 1993), this is a ``significant
regulatory action''. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order
12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.
    Because this action does not propose or impose any requirements and
instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Agency to consider in
possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the various statutes
and Executive Orders that normally apply to rulemaking do not apply in
this case. Should EPA subsequently determine to pursue a rulemaking,
EPA will address the statutes and Executive Orders as applicable to
that rulemaking.

    Dated: February 10, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2011-3861 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P