[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34492-34493]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11416]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD23-7-000]

PJM Capacity Market Forum; Supplemental Notice of Forum

    As announced in the April 19, 2023 Notice in this proceeding, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will convene a
Commissioner-led forum to examine the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM)
capacity market in the above-captioned proceeding on June 15, 2023 from
approximately 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, following the
Commission's scheduled open meeting. The forum will be held in-person
at the Commission headquarters at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426 in the Commission Meeting Room.
    The purpose of this forum is to solicit varied perspectives on the
current state of the PJM capacity market, potential improvements to the
market, and to consider related proposals to address resource adequacy.
The forum will include three panels that will explore whether the PJM
capacity market is achieving its objective of ensuring resource
adequacy at just and reasonable rates, discuss potential market design
reforms that may be needed to achieve this objective, and discuss state
Commissioners' and state representatives' views on these issues. The
agenda for this forum attached to this Supplemental Notice provides
more detail for each panel.
    While the forum is not for the purpose of discussing any specific
matters before the Commission, some forum discussions may involve
issues raised in proceedings that are currently pending before the
Commission. These proceedings include, but are not limited to:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..............  Docket Nos. ER22-962, et al.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..............  Docket Nos. ER23-729, et al.;
                                           EL23-19, et al.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..............  Docket No. ER23-1038-001.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..............  Docket No. ER23-1067-000.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..............  Docket No. ER23-1609-000.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..............  Docket No. ER23-1700-000.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C..............  Docket No. EL21-78-000.
SOO Green HVDC Link ProjectCo, LLC v.     Docket No. EL21-103-000.
 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Roy J. Shanker v. PJM Interconnection     Docket No. EL23-13-000.
 LLC.
Essential Power OPP, LLC, et al. v. PJM   Docket No. EL23-53-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Aurora Generation, LLC, et al. v. PJM     Docket No. EL23-54-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Coalition of PJM Capacity Resources v.    Docket No. EL23-55-000.
 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Talen Energy Marketing, LLC v. PJM        Docket No. EL23-56-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Lee County Generating Station, LLC v.     Docket Nos. EL23-57, et al.
 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
SunEnergy1, LLC v. PJM Interconnection,   Docket No. EL23-58-000.
 L.L.C.
Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC v. PJM   Docket No. EL23-59-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Parkway Generation Keys Energy Center     Docket No. EL23-60-000.
 LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative v. PJM  Docket No. EL23-61-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Energy Harbor LLC v. PJM                  Docket No. EL23-63-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
Calpine Corp. v. PJM Interconnection,     Docket No. EL23-66-000.
 L.L.C.
Invenergy Nelson LLC v. PJM               Docket No. EL23-67-000.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Attached to this Supplemental Notice is an agenda for the forum,
which includes the forum program and expected panelists.
    Panelists are asked to submit advance materials to provide any
information related to their respective panel (e.g., summary
statements, reports, whitepapers, studies, or testimonies) that
panelists believe should be included in the record of this proceeding
by June 2, 2023. Panelists should file all advance materials in the
AD23-7-000 docket in eLibrary.
    The forum will be open to the public and there is no fee for
attendance. Information will also be posted on the Calendar of Events
on the Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event.
    The forum will be transcribed and webcast. Transcripts will be
available for a fee from Ace Reporting<PHONE_NUMBER>). A free webcast
of this event is available through the Commission's website. Anyone
with internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provides
technical support for the free webcasts. Please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email [email protected] if you have any questions.
    Commission forums are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected], call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this forum, please contact Katherine
Scott at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For information
related to logistics, please contact Sarah McKinley at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 23, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

PJM Capacity Market Forum

Docket No. AD23-7-000

June 15, 2023

Agenda and Speakers

12:00 p.m.-12:20 p.m.: Welcome and Opening Remarks
12:20 p.m.-1:30 p.m.: Panel 1: Objectives and Outcomes of PJM's
Capacity Market

    This panel will explore whether the PJM capacity market is
achieving its objective of ensuring resource adequacy at just and
reasonable rates. To facilitate an open and thoughtful dialogue, we
suggest panelists be prepared to discuss questions such as (1) is the
PJM capacity market fulfilling its objectives? If not, why not?; (2) do
changes to the resource mix and load, including wide-spread
electrification and increased risks due to extreme weather, require
changes to the structure of the capacity market?; (3) are there other
drivers that may be

preventing the PJM capacity market from achieving its objectives?

Panelists

 Manu Asthana, President and CEO, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
 Joseph Bowring, President, Monitoring Analytics, Inc.
 Jim Robb, President and CEO, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation
 Phil Moeller, Executive Vice President, Business Operations
Group and Regulatory Affairs, Edison Electric Institute
 Greg Poulos, Executive Director, Consumer Advocates of the PJM
States

1:30 p.m.-1:40 p.m.: Break
1:40 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Panel 2: Capacity Market Design Reforms

    This panel will focus on market design reforms that could better
achieve the objectives of PJM's capacity market, including those
currently under consideration in PJM's Critical Issue Fast Path
stakeholder process. We suggest panelists be prepared to discuss
questions such as (1) what reforms might improve the capacity auction's
ability to send efficient signals for entry and exit?; (2) what changes
might send more efficient signals for resources to perform in real-
time?; and (3) what other changes to PJM's current capacity market
design might better achieve its objectives?

Panelists

 Adam Keech, Vice President of Market Design and Economics, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
 Joseph Bowring, President, Monitoring Analytics, Inc.
 Glen Thomas, President, PJM Power Providers Group
 Marji Philips, Senior Vice President, Wholesale Market Policy,
LS Power
 Todd Snitchler, President and CEO, Electric Power Supply
Association
 Michelle Bloodworth, President and CEO, America's Power
 Susan Bruce, PJM Industrial Customer Coalition
 Casey Roberts, Senior Attorney, Sierra Club
 James Wilson, Principle, Wilson Energy Economics

3:30 p.m.-3:40 p.m.: Break
3:40 p.m.-4:40 p.m.: Panel 3: Roundtable with State Representatives

    This panel will be a roundtable with state Commissioners and other
state representatives that will reflect on discussions in the first and
second panels. This panel may include discussion on how the PJM
capacity market has been functioning and potential changes.

Panelists

 Dan Conway, Commissioner, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio
 Joe Fiordaliso, President, New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities
 Kent Chandler, Chairman, Kentucky Public Service Commission
 Emile Thompson, Chairman, District of Columbia Public Service
Commission
 William Fields, Deputy People's Counsel, Maryland Office of
People's Counsel
 Ruth Ann Price, Deputy Public Advocate, Delaware Division of
the Public Advocate

4:40 p.m.-5:00 p.m.: Closing Remarks

[FR Doc. 2023-11416 Filed 5-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 10)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2428-2431]
[DOCID:fr15ja08-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0276; FRL-8508-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Amendments to Lead Rules, Quemetco

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On February 7, 2002, Indiana submitted revisions to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead (Pb) as part of the State's
incorporation of a Federal standard for secondary lead smelters. On
October 3, 2006, and November 27, 2007, Indiana supplemented its
request as it pertained to Quemetco, Incorporated (Quemetco), in Marion
County. The requested SIP revision replaces the Pb emission limits for
Quemetco with new, stringent limits. EPA has determined that the new
limits will be protective of the Pb air quality standards, and is
therefore approving them.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective March 17, 2008, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by February 14, 2008. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0276, 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-
2006-0276. 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 information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

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, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
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 Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 353-5954 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, 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: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background: Pb SIP and NESHAP Rules
II. What are the new limits for secondary lead smelters?
III. How does removing Quemetco from Article 15 affect the Pb SIP?
IV. Demonstration of Pb NAAQS Attainment
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background: Pb SIP and NESHAP Rules

    Indiana's SIP rules for Pb are currently codified at 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 15, which is also referred to as Article 15.
Article 15 covers lead-bearing emissions and fugitive dust from several
facilities in Indiana, including secondary lead smelters. The SIP rules
applicable to sources in Marion County, Indiana, were developed to
ensure that Marion County would attain and maintain the Pb National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    EPA promulgated the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for secondary lead smelting on June 23, 1995 (60 FR
32587); amended on June 13, 1997 (62 FR 32209). Codified at 40 CFR part
63, subpart X, this NESHAP is a technology-based regulation intended to
bring certain sources at secondary lead smelters to a specified level
of air pollution control. Indiana incorporated the Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) standard of the secondary lead smelter
NESHAP, with certain adjustments, in 326 IAC 20-13. On August 22, 2006
(71 FR 48923), EPA approved Indiana's request for delegation of
authority to implement and enforce the NESHAP for secondary lead
smelting through 326 IAC 20-13.
    The Federal NESHAP in Subpart X is expected to result in air
quality benefits where it affects secondary lead smelters which were
previously unregulated or which were previously subject to less
stringent controls. In Indiana, however, the existing Marion County Pb
SIP limits were already more stringent than the NESHAP's limits.
Indiana believed that the Federal secondary lead smelter NESHAP would
not fully protect the Pb NAAQS in Marion County. Therefore, when
Indiana adopted the NESHAP into 326 IAC 20-13, the State adjusted it to
make the rule's emission limits at least

as stringent as the Marion County Pb SIP limits had been.
    There are two secondary lead smelters in Marion County, Indiana,
Quemetco and Refined Metals of Indianapolis (Refined Metals). Quemetco,
located in Indianapolis, recycles lead-acid batteries and other lead-
bearing materials. It is currently operating and is affected by both
the Marion County Pb SIP and the NESHAP rules for secondary lead
smelters. Indiana chose to remove the paragraph that addressed Quemetco
from the Pb SIP at Article 15, so that the facility's Pb emission
regulations would all reside in one State rule, 326 IAC 20-13. The
Refined Metals facility has closed.

II. What are the new limits for secondary lead smelters?

    The emission limits for Quemetco in 326 IAC 20-13 differ from the
last Federally approved Pb SIP limits in Article 15. The SIP previously
approved by EPA contained Pb emission limits for specific processes and
process fugitive emissions. Later, the Quemetco facility enclosed its
Pb emission sources. Indiana subsequently revised Quemetco's Pb rules
to apply Pb emission limits on individual numbered vent stacks under
the facility's new configuration. The Pb limits in 326 IAC 20-13, which
were submitted to EPA on February 7, 2002, correspond to Quemetco's
current stack configuration. In addition, the limits in 326 IAC 15-1-
2(a)(8) were given in units of pounds per hour, but the numerical Pb
emission limits for Quemetco in 326 IAC 20-13-2(a) are given in units
of milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) to match the
Federal NESHAP's emission limit units.
    The process source limits in 326 IAC 20-13-2(a) are 1.0 mg/dscm,
compared to the corresponding NESHAP limits of 2.0 mg/dscm. This limit
applies to Quemetco's Stacks 100 and 111. The process fugitive source
limits are 0.5 mg/dscm, compared to the NESHAP limits of 2.0 mg/dscm,
and the emission limits for stacks venting fugitive dust sources are
also 0.5 mg/dscm, compared to the NESHAP limits of 2.0 mg/dscm. These
limits apply to Quemetco's Stacks 101-109. Quemetco has already shown
that it can meet these limits.
    The regulation at 326 IAC 20-13-2(a) also requires the use of High
Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters, as defined in 40 CFR 63.542,
on process fugitive emissions and stacks venting fugitive dust sources.
The Quemetco facility already uses HEPA filters on its baghouses.
    Indiana's secondary lead smelter rules include a partial
incorporation by reference of 40 CFR part 63, subpart X, at 326 IAC 20-
13-1(c). This specifies standards for process and fugitive sources at
secondary lead smelters, test methods, fugitive dust control, standard
operating procedures for baghouses, and monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements. The regulation at 326 IAC 20-13-1(c) does not include
certain portions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart X, which are already
covered by other portions of 326 IAC 20-13. The numerical emission
limits for process, fugitive, and process fugitive sources found in 40
CFR part 63, subpart X are not included in the incorporation because
Indiana's rule replaces them with more stringent limits, as in 326 IAC
20-13-2(a), for Quemetco. Certain requirements for baghouse bag leak
detection systems are also not included in 326 IAC 20-13-1(c). These
requirements do not apply to Quemetco, which has HEPA filters and is
therefore not required to have a bag leak detection system.

III. How does removing Quemetco from Article 15 affect the Pb SIP?

    Because 326 IAC 20-13 now contains Pb emission limits for Quemetco,
Indiana chose to delete the portion of Article 15 that contains Pb
emission limits for Quemetco under the Marion County SIP, rather than
retain duplicate or conflicting emission limits. The final State rule
removing 326 IAC 15-1-2(a)(8) was published in the Indiana Register on
January 1, 2001 (24 Ind. Reg. 954).
    Simply deleting Quemetco's limits from Article 15 would be an
unacceptable relaxation of the Marion County Pb SIP, even though
Quemetco's Pb air emissions are still regulated by the NESHAP at 326
IAC 20-13. State Pb SIP limits must be directly linked to local air
quality effects. The levels of the Pb SIP limits in Article 15 have
been shown, through dispersion modeling, to assure attainment and
maintenance of the Pb NAAQS in Marion County. The SIP may not be
subsequently relaxed without review and rulemaking action by EPA, to
assure continued maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA can bring enforcement
action against a facility based on noncompliance with the Federally
approved SIP limits. The NESHAP sets emission control requirements for
secondary lead smelters as a group. Its emission limits are based on
nationally available emission control technology. The NESHAP can be
changed as a broad national measure, without requiring an analysis of
the effects on local air quality.
    Therefore, in an October 3, 2006 letter, Indiana requested that
portions of 326 IAC 20-13 be approved into the Marion County Pb SIP in
place of 326 IAC 15-1-2(a)(8). This request was clarified in a second
letter from Indiana to EPA dated November 27, 2007. Incorporating those
provisions of 326 IAC 20-13 into the Marion County Pb SIP ensures that
the Pb emission limits for Quemetco cannot be changed without proper
State rulemaking procedures, a demonstration of attainment of the Pb
NAAQS, and review and rulemaking action by EPA. The portions of Article
15 which Indiana requested as SIP revisions are 326 IAC 20-13-2(a)
(Quemetco's emission limits and filter requirements); 326 IAC 20-13-
1(c) (incorporation of 40 CFR part 63, subpart X); and 326 IAC 20-13-6
(compliance testing).

IV. Demonstration of Pb NAAQS Attainment

    The State performed dispersion modeling in 2005 using the ISCST3
model to demonstrate that the new limits would protect the Pb NAAQS in
Marion County. ISCST3 was the appropriate regulatory dispersion model
at the time. The modeling used the regulatory default options and five
years of surface meteorological data from the Indianapolis, Indiana
airport, with upper-air meteorological data from Dayton, Ohio. Building
dimensions were included to account for downwash effects. The State
included both Quemetco's Pb emissions and the allowable Pb emissions
for the Refined Metals secondary smelter under Article 15. The Refined
Metals facility is currently not operating; but because Indiana has
maintained the SIP rule addressing Refined Metals in Article 15, its
allowable emissions must be included in the Marion County attainment
demonstration. The model showed that the limits in 326 IAC 20-13 will
maintain the Pb NAAQS of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter, quarterly. The
maximum modeled quarterly impact of the Marion County Pb sources was
0.16 micrograms per cubic meter. This value includes a background Pb
concentration taken from locally monitored air quality data.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Indiana's February 7, 2002, SIP revision request,
as supplemented in a letter dated October 3, 2006, and another letter
dated November 27, 2007. EPA is approving the removal of 326 IAC 15-1-
2(a)(8) from the Indiana Pb SIP. EPA is also approving as part of the
SIP: (1) Corresponding minor editorial changes

in two sections of 326 IAC 15-1 that refer to Quemetco; (2) the
addition of 326 IAC 20-13-2(a); (3) the addition of 326 IAC 20-13-1(c);
and (4) the addition of 326 IAC 20-13-6. This SIP revision retains
emission limits adequate to protect the Pb NAAQS in Marion County,
Indiana, and places the regulations affecting Indiana's active
secondary lead smelters in one section of Indiana's pollution control
regulations. It should be noted that this action in no way affects the
continued enforceability of the Federal NESHAP at 40 CFR Part 63,
Subpart X.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. The proposed rule will be effective March
17, 2008 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse
written comments by February 14, 2008. If we receive such comments, we
will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective March 17, 2008.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    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.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' 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).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will 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.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does 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 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does 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 approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act (CAA).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This 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 approves a state rule implementing a
Federal Standard.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    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 CAA. 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by March 17, 2008. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 7, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(183) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (183) On February 7, 2002, Indiana submitted revisions to its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead (Pb) as part of the State's
incorporation of a Federal standard for secondary lead smelters. On
October 3, 2006, and November 27, 2007, Indiana supplemented its
request as it pertained to Quemetco, Incorporated, in Marion County.
This revision removes from the Indiana SIP the source-specific
provisions for Quemetco found in article 326 IAC 15, previously
approved in paragraph (c)(95) of this section, and replaces them with
the corresponding provisions of article 326 IAC 20-13.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The following sections of Title 326
of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) are incorporated by reference:
    (A) 326 IAC 15-1-2(c) ``Source-specific provisions'' and 326 IAC
15-1-3 ``Control of fugitive lead dust''. Filed with the Secretary of
State on December 1, 2000, effective December 30, 2000. Published in
the Indiana Register on January 1, 2001 (24 IR 954).
    (B) 326 IAC 20-13-1(c) ``Applicability; incorporation by reference
of federal standards'', 326 IAC 20-13-2(a) ``Emission limitations lead
standards for Quemetco, Incorporated'', and 326 IAC 20-13-6
``Compliance testing''. Filed with the Secretary of State on December
1, 2000, effective December 30, 2000. Published in the Indiana Register
on January 1, 2001 (24 IR 958).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-440 Filed 1-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 21, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 2002-12983

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  LINEAS AEREAS AZTECA, S.A. de C.V.
                       Date Filed:  August 5, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct scheduled, combination services between
Guadalajara, Mexico, and Chicago, Illinois.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  August 16, 2002, in this
Docket.

Applicant representative:  Pierre Murphy,<PHONE_NUMBER>              DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.			       			                        Action date:
August 21, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  August 21, 2003, through August
21, 2004.

Basis for approval:  United States-Mexico Air Transport Services
Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption
conditions.

Special conditions/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web
atഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯
愮灳

T


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22101-22103]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10189]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R07-OAR-2019-0190; FRL-9993-27-Region 7]

Approval of Missouri Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Redesignation of the Missouri Portion of the St. Louis-St. Charles-
Farmington, MO-IL 2012 PM2.5 Unclassifiable Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a request from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MoDNR) to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St. Louis-St.
Charles-Farmington, MO-IL fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
unclassifiable area (``St. Louis area'' or ``area'') to unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area comprises of the City of St.
Louis and the counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St.
Louis. The EPA now has sufficient data to determine that the St. Louis
area is in attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to approve the state's December 11, 2018 request, and
redesignate the area to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS based upon valid, quality-assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data showing that the PM2.5 monitors
in the area are in compliance with the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
EPA will address the Illinois portion of the St. Louis area in a
separate rulemaking action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2019-0190, to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lachala Kemp, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Background Information
IV. What are the criteria for redesignating an area from
unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment?
V. What is the EPA's rationale for proposing to redesignate the
area?
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2019-
0190, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve MoDNR's request to change the
designation of the Missouri portion of the St. Louis area from
unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, based on quality-assured and certified
monitoring data for 2015-2017, and proposing to approve that the
Missouri portion of the St. Louis area has met the requirements for
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA.

III. Background Information

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a process for air quality
management through the establishment and implementation of the NAAQS.
Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d)(1)of the
CAA requires EPA to designate areas as attainment, nonattainment, or
unclassifiable. On December 14, 2012, the EPA promulgated a revised
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to provide increased protection
of public health and welfare from fine particle pollution (78 FR 3086,
January 15, 2013). In that action, the EPA revised the primary annual
PM2.5 standard, strengthening it from 15.0 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 12.0 ([mu]g/m\3\), which is attained when
the three-year average of the annual arithmetic means does not exceed
12.0 ([mu]g/m\3\). The EPA

established the standard based on significant evidence and numerous
health studies demonstrating that serious health effects are associated
with exposures to particulate matter.
    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA. On
December 18, 2014, the EPA designated the majority of areas across the
country as nonattainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable
\1\ for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS based upon air quality
monitoring data from monitors for calendar years 2011-2013. See 80 FR
2206 (January 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the initial PM area designations in 2014 (for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS), EPA used a designation category of
``unclassifiable/attainment'' for areas that had monitors showing
attainment of the standard and were not contributing to nearby
violations and for areas that did not have monitors but for which
EPA had reason to believe were likely attaining the standard and not
contributing to nearby violations. EPA used the category
``unclassifiable'' for areas in which EPA could not determine, based
upon available information, whether or not the NAAQS was being met
and/or EPA had not determined the area to be contributing to nearby
violations. EPA reserves the ``attainment'' category for when EPA
redesignates a nonattainment area that has attained the relevant
NAAQS and has an approved maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA initially designated the bi-state St. Louis area as
unclassifiable based on ambient air quality data from 2011-2013. During
that time period, the EPA identified data completeness issues with the
ambient PM2.5 monitoring data in the state of Illinois.
Although all monitors in Missouri were attaining the standard at the
time of the initial designations, the lack of complete monitoring data
in Illinois prevented EPA from being able to determine whether
violations of the standard were occurring in the Illinois portion of
the St.Louis area or whether emission sources in Missouri were
contributing to any violations in Illinois. Therefore, the EPA
designated the entire St. Louis MO-IL area as unclassifiable for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. What are the criteria for redesignating an area from unclassifiable
to unclassifiable/attainment?

    Section 107(d)(3) of the CAA provides the framework for changing
the area designations for any NAAQS pollutants. Section 107(d)(3)(A)
provides that the Administrator may notify the Governor of any state
that the designation of an area should be revised ``on the basis of air
quality data, planning and control considerations, or any other air
quality-related considerations the Administrator deems appropriate.''
The CAA further provides in section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the
Administrator has not notified a state Governor that a designation
should be revised, the Governor of any state may, on the Governor's own
motion, submit a request to revise the designation of any area, and the
Administrator must approve or deny the request.
    When approving or denying a request to redesignate an area, EPA
bases its decision on the air quality data for the area as well as the
considerations provided under section 107(d)(3)(A).\2\ In keeping with
section 107(d)(1)(A), areas that are redesignated to unclassifiable/
attainment must meet the requirements for attainment areas and thus
must meet the relevant NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute
to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS.
The relevant monitoring data must be collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA Air Quality
System (AQS) database. The designated monitors generally should have
remained at the same location for the duration of the monitoring period
upon which the redesignation request is based.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists specific
requirements for redesignations, those requirements only apply to
redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and therefore
are not applicable in the context of a redesignation of an area from
unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment.
    \3\ See ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment'', Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air
Quality Management Division, September 4, 1992 (the ``Calcagni
Memorandum'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What is the EPA's rationale for proposing to redesignate the area?

    To redesignate the area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the
three-year average of the annual arimethic means does not exceed 12.0
([mu]g/m\3\) at all monitoring sites in the area over the full three-
year period, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR 50.18 and appendix
N of part 50. The EPA reviewed PM2.5 monitoring data from
the monitors in the St. Louis area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
for the three-year period from 2015-2017. As summarized in table 1, the
design values for the monitors in the area for the 2015-2017 are below
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These data have been quality-assured,
certified, and recorded in AQS by Missouri and Illinois, and the
monitoring location has not changed during the monitoring period.

                                Table 1--Annual PM2.5 Design Values for the St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual design values ([mu]g/
                                                                                m\3\)                 2015- 2017
                State                           County                  Monitor            AQS site ID  ---------------------------------  Design value
                                                                                2015       2016       2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri.............................  St. Louis City.........  Blair Street (FRM).....     29-510-0085       10.4        8.5        7.9             8.9
Missouri.............................  St. Louis City.........  South Broadway.........     29-510-0007       11.1        8.1        7.8             9.0
Missouri.............................  Jefferson..............  Arnold West............     29-099-0019       11.6        8.3        8.2             9.3
Missouri.............................  St. Louis County.......  Ladue..................     29-189-3001       10.3        8.7        9.4             9.5
Missouri.............................  St. Louis City.........  Forest Park............     29-510-0094        9.2        8.7        8.3             8.7
Illinois.............................  Madison................  Alton..................     17-119-2009        9.0        8.8        8.7             8.8
Illinois.............................  Madison................  Wood River.............     17-119-3007        9.1        8.7        8.3             8.7
Illinois.............................  Madison................  Granite City...........     17-119-1007       10.4        9.1        9.6             9.7
Illinois.............................  St. Clair..............  East St. Louis.........     17-163-0010       10.7       10.0        8.8             9.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to redesignate the Missouri portion of the St.
Louis area from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment because the
three-year design value meets the 2012 primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS.

VI. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the MoDNR's December 11, 2018,
request to redesignate the Missouri's portion of the St. Louis area
from unclassifiable to

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS. If finalized, approval of the redesignation request would change
the legal designation, found at 40 CFR part 81, of the City of St.
Louis and the counties of Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St.
Louis from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, a redesignation of an area to unclassifiable/
attainment is an action that affects the status of a geographical area
and does not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those imposed by state law. A redesignation to unclassifiable/
attainment does not create any new requirements. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to redesignate an area to unclassifiable/
attainment and does not impose additional requirements. For that
reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    This proposed action is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

    Dated: May 8, 2019.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 81 as set forth below:

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
2. Section 81.326 is amended by revising the entry for ``St. Louis
Area, MO-IL'' in the table entitled ``Missouri--2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.326  Missouri.

* * * * *

                                        Missouri--2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
                                                    [Primary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Designation                        Classification
          Designated area \1\          -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Date \2\               Type            Date \2\          Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Area MO-IL:
    Franklin County...................  [Date of             Unclassifiable/
                                         publication of the   Attainment.
                                         final rule in the
                                         Federal Register],
                                         [Federal Register
                                         citation of the
                                         final rule].
    Jefferson County..................  [Date of             Unclassifiable/
                                         publication of the   Attainmant.
                                         final rule in the
                                         Federal Register],
                                         [Federal Register
                                         citation of the
                                         final rule].
    St. Charles County................  [Date of             Unclassifiable/
                                         publication of the   Attainmant.
                                         final rule in the
                                         Federal Register],
                                         [Federal Register
                                         citation of the
                                         final rule].
    St. Louis County..................  [Date of             Unclassifiable/
                                         publication of the   Attainmant.
                                         final rule in the
                                         Federal Register],
                                         [Federal Register
                                         citation of the
                                         final rule].
    St. Louis City....................  [Date of             Unclassifiable/
                                         publication of the   Attainmant.
                                         final rule in the
                                         Federal Register],
                                         [Federal Register
                                         citation of the
                                         final rule].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes areas of Indian country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\2\ This date is April 15, 2015, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-10189 Filed 5-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 215)]
[Notices]
[Page 65848]
[DOCID:fr05no08-41]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0884; FRL-8388-6]

Issuance of an Experimental Use Permit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted an experimental use permit (EUP) to the
following pesticide applicant. An EUP permits use of a pesticide for
experimental or research purposes only in accordance with the
limitations in the permit.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shanaz Bacchus, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. Although this
action may be of particular interest to those persons who conduct or
sponsor research on pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
If you have any questions regarding the information in this action,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0884. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal
Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr.

II. EUP

    EPA has issued the following EUP:
    264-EUP-143. Issuance. Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. This EUP allows the use of the plant
incorporated protectants Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cry 1Ab and Bt
Cry2Ae (insecticides) on 1,919 acres of cotton. The active ingredients
are described on the permit labels and summarized as follows:
     0.02022 pound (9.18 gram) of Bt Cry2Ae active ingredient
in cotton events GHB119 and cotton event GHB714.
     0.05883 pound (26.709 gram) of Bt Cry1Ab x Bt Cry2Ae
(Twinlink) active ingredient in hybrids of cotton events T303-3 and
T304-40 Bt Cry 1Ab with cotton events GHB 119 and GHB714 Bt Cry2Ae.
    This EUP is intended to evaluate the control of Cotton bollworm
(Helicoverpa zea), tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens), pink bollworm
(Pectinophora gossypiella), fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), and
beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua). The program is authorized only in
the States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, and the United States Territory of Puerto Rico. The EUP is
effective from September 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136c.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: October 24, 2008.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E8-26149 Filed 11-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 85 (Friday, May 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25153-25154]
[FR Doc No: 2014-10045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0010]

Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Standard; Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Fire Protection in
Shipyard Employment Standard (29 CFR part 1915, subpart P).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent or received) by
July 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0010, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2010-0010) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other materials in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not
publically available to read or download from the Web site. All
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Theda
Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Fire Protection in Shipard Employment Standard specifies a
number of collection of information (paperwork) requirements. In
general, the Standard requires employers to develop a written fire
safety plan and written statements or policies that contain information
about fire watches and fire response duties and

responsibilities. The Standard also requires the employer to obtain
medical exams for certain workers and to develop training programs and
to train employees exposed to fire hazards. Additionally, the Standard
requires employers to create and maintain records to certify that
employees have been made aware of the details of the fire safety plan
and that employees have been trained as required by the Standard.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements specified in the Fire Protection in Shipyard
Employment Standard. The Agency is requesting an increase in burden
hours from 4,635 to 6,051 (a total increase of 1,416 burden hours). The
Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice
and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the
approval of the information collection requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Standard (29 CFR part
1915, subpart P)
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0248.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Responses: 53,121.
    Frequency of Responses: Quarterly; Annually.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hour) for an
employer to post the fire safety plan or the it in an area accessible
to employees to 12 hours for firms to develop a written fire safety
plan.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 6,051.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other materials must identify the Agency
name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-
0010). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in
reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit
them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled
ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the
Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publically available to read or download from this Web
site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet
to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC on April 28, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-10045 Filed 5-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P