[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40652-40660]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17232]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0544; FRL-9434-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Air
Resources Board--In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Truck and Bus
Regulation, Drayage Truck Regulation and Ocean-Going Vessels Clean
Fuels Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that EPA expects to be submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB or Board). These revisions concern
three regulations that reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter
(PM), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and other pollutants from in-use, heavy-duty diesel-
fueled trucks and buses and from ocean-going vessels (OGV) operating
within California jurisdiction. This proposed approval is based on
proposed regulations submitted by CARB and an accompanying request to
proceed with SIP review while the State completes its public review and
agency adoption process. EPA will not take final action on the
regulations until California submits the final adopted versions to EPA
as a revision to the California SIP. Final EPA approval of the
regulations and incorporation of them into the California SIP would
make them federally enforceable. We are providing a 30-day comment
period for today's proposal.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0544, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail: R9truck--dray--OGVcomments
    3. Mail or deliver: Roxanne Johnson (Air U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.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 www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 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., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roxanne Johnson, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4150<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What regulations did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these regulations?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted regulations?
    D. What requirements do the regulations establish?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?
    B. CARB Regulations Meeting CAA SIP Evaluation Criteria
    1. Did the State provide adequate public notification and
comment periods?
    2. Does the State have adequate legal authority to implement the
regulations?
    3. Are the regulations enforceable as required under CAA section
110(a)(2)?

    4. Do the regulations interfere with reasonable further progress
and attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act?
    5. Will the State have adequate personnel and funding for the
regulations?
    6. EPA's Regulation Evaluation Conclusion
    C. Proposed Action, Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What regulations did the State submit?

    By letters dated May 11 and May 19, 2011, CARB submitted to EPA
three proposed regulations, with requests for parallel
processing.1, 2 See May 11, and May 19, 2011 letters to
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, from James N.
Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under EPA's ``parallel processing'' procedure, EPA proposes
rulemaking action concurrently with the State's proposed rulemaking.
If the State's proposed rule is changed, EPA will evaluate that
subsequent change and may publish another notice of proposed
rulemaking. If no significant change is made, EPA will publish a
final rulemaking on the rule after responding to any submitted
comments. Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the
rule has been fully adopted by California and submitted formally to
EPA for incorporation into the SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
    \2\ Technically, the versions of the regulations submitted to
EPA by CARB for parallel processing, and evaluated herein, represent
proposed modifications and amendments to regulations previously
adopted by CARB, but because the previously-adopted regulations were
not submitted for incorporation into the SIP, i.e., the regulations
would be new to the SIP, we refer to them as ``proposed
regulations'' rather than ``proposed amendments'' or ``proposed
modifications'' in this document. To be clear, the versions of the
truck, bus, and drayage truck regulations that we have evaluated
herein are the versions released for public comment on May 19, 2011,
and the version of the ocean-going vessel regulation that we have
evaluated herein is the version released for public comment on April
26, 2011.
    \3\ In addition to the proposed version of 13 CCR section
2299.2, CARB also submitted the proposed version of 17 CCR section
93118.2. The two regulations are fundamentally identical and reflect
the authorities granted to CARB in the California Health and Safety
Code to regulate marine vessel emissions (section 2299.2, title 13,
CCR) and to regulate sources of toxic air contaminants (section
93118.2, title 17, CCR). We see no need for both regulations to be
approved into the SIP and propose to approve only the title 13
regulation into the California SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 below, lists the regulations addressed by this proposal.
These regulations include: (1) Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel
Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants,
from In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (``Truck and Bus
Regulation''); (2) In-Use On-road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-Duty Drayage
Trucks (``Drayage Truck Regulation''); and (3) Fuel Sulfur and Other
Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels within California
Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline (``OGV Clean
Fuels Regulation'').

  Table 1--Regulations Submitted by California for Parallel Processing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  California Code of Regulations
   (CCR), title 13, section No.               Regulation title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2025......................  Regulation to Reduce Emissions of
                                     Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides
                                     of Nitrogen and Other Criteria
                                     Pollutants, from In-Use Heavy-Duty
                                     Diesel-Fueled Vehicles.
Section 2027......................  In-Use On-road Diesel-Fueled Heavy-
                                     Duty Drayage Trucks.
Section 2299.2 \3\................  Fuel Sulfur and Other Operational
                                     Requirements for Ocean-Going
                                     Vessels within California Waters
                                     and 24 Nautical Miles of the
                                     California Baseline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's May 11, 2011 parallel processing request includes the CARB
notice of public hearing, held on June 23, 2011 and the CARB Staff
Report, ``Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking:
Proposed Amendments to the Regulations `Fuel Sulfur and Other
Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels within California
Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California Baseline,' '' May 2011.
The proposed OGV Clean Fuels Regulation was submitted as appendix A to
the CARB Staff Report, but since the version in appendix A only
includes the subsections of the regulation that are proposed for
amendment, and not the unchanged subsections, we have also reviewed the
original regulation approved in 2008 together with the proposed
amendments.
    CARB's May 19, 2011 parallel processing request includes CARB's
notice of public availability of the proposed Truck and Bus Regulation
and proposed Drayage Truck Regulation and the initiation of a 15-day
comment period. CARB's 15-day notice refers to two attachments, one of
which shows the most recent modifications to the Truck and Bus
Regulation and the second of which shows the most recent modifications
to the Drayage Truck Regulation. Herein, we refer to these versions of
the regulations as ``proposed regulations.'' The versions of the
regulations referred to in the 15-day notice as ``attachment 1'' and
``attachment 2'' are the versions of the regulations that we have
evaluated herein. CARB's May 19, 2011 request also includes: Two
resolutions dated December 17, 2010 through which CARB approved
amendments [to the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation] for adoption by the CARB Executive Officer (EO) once he
makes further modifications to the regulations consistent with the
resolutions, and the CARB staff report, ``Initial Statement of Reasons
for Proposed Rulemaking: Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus
Regulations, the Drayage Truck Regulation, the Tractor-Trailer
Greenhouse Gas Regulation,'' October 2010.
    EPA is granting CARB's request that EPA ``parallel process'' our
review and propose action on the three regulations. All of the relevant
documents are available for review in the docket for today's proposed
rulemaking.

B. Are there other versions of these regulations?

    The Truck and Bus Regulation was initially approved by CARB in
December 2008 and became effective (for State law purposes) in January
2010. In December 2010, CARB adopted Resolution 10-44 after considering
amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation as initially proposed by
CARB staff and covered by the Notice of Public Hearing (``45-day Public
Notice'') and Staff Report, which were initially published on October
19, 2010, and staff's suggested modifications to the proposed
amendments, which were made in response to comments received before the
CARB public hearing regarding staff's initial proposal. CARB directed
staff to modify the initially proposed amendments consistent with the
suggested modifications and CARB's findings as set forth in the
resolution. Resolution 10-44 further directed the CARB EO to make the
modifications to

the initially proposed amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation
available for public comment for a period of 15 days, and to take final
action to adopt the proposed amendments, as modified in the publicly
noticed 15-day changes, or return to the CARB Board for further
consideration. The version of the regulation that is subject to CARB's
15-day notice is the one we evaluate herein for eventual approval into
the California SIP. CARB's 15-day public comment period ended June 3,
2011.
    The Drayage Truck Regulation was initially approved by CARB in
December 2007 and became effective (for State law purposes) in December
2008. In December 2010, CARB adopted Resolution 10-45 after considering
amendments to the Drayage Truck Regulation initially proposed by CARB
staff and covered by the 45-Day Public Notice and Staff Report, and
directed that the proposed amendments be modified consistent with the
CARB Board's findings therein and following the process outlined above
for final adoption of amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation. The
version of the regulation that is subject to CARB's 15-day notice,
which covers both the Truck and Bus Regulation and the Drayage Truck
Regulation, is the one we evaluate herein for eventual approval into
the California SIP.
    The OGV Clean Fuels Regulation was initially approved by CARB in
July 2008 and became effective (for State law purposes) in July 2009.
On May 4, 2011, CARB published a 45-day notice opening a public comment
period and making available proposed amendments to the regulation. A
public hearing for the CARB Board to consider adoption of the
amendments was held on June 23, 2011. Following the public hearing on
June 23, 2011, the CARB Board adopted a resolution that directs the
CARB Executive Officer to take final action to adopt the amendments
that were the subject of the 45-day notice in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and to
further modify the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation to reduce the ``Phase 1''
sulfur content limit for marine gas oil from 1.5% to 1.0% beginning on
August 1, 2012, subject to an additional 15-day notice to allow for
public comment on the further modifications. The original regulation,
along with the proposed amendments that was the subject of CARB's 45-
day notice, is the version we evaluate herein for eventual approval
into the California SIP. For evaluative purposes herein, we also
recognize the CARB Board's action on June 23, 2011 to direct the CARB
Executive Officer to modify the regulation to reduce the ``Phase 1''
sulfur content limit for marine gas oil from 1.5% to 1.0% beginning on
August 1, 2012, as set forth in attachment B to CARB's proposed
Resolution 11-25 dated June 23, 2011.
    As described above, there are previous versions of the three
regulations, but none of the previous versions were submitted to EPA
for incorporation into the SIP. For a more detailed discussion of
CARB's adoption process for these regulations and a discussion of the
previous versions of these regulations adopted by the State but not
submitted to EPA, please see the documentation submitted by CARB,
included in the docket for today's rulemaking.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted regulations?

    The purpose of the three regulations is to reduce NOX,
SO2 and PM emissions from in-use heavy-duty diesel-fueled
trucks and buses, drayage trucks, ocean-going vessels (OGV), and to
meet CAA requirements. NOX is a precursor responsible for
the formation of ozone, and NOX and SO2 are
precursors for fine particulate matter (PM2.5).\4\ At
elevated levels, ozone and PM2.5 harm human health and the
environment by contributing to premature mortality, aggravation of
respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function,
visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ SO2 belongs to a family of compounds referred to
as sulfur oxide (SOX). PM2.5 precursors
include SO2, NOX, volatile organic compounds,
and ammonia. See 40 CFR 51.1000. CARB generally uses the term,
sulfur oxides (SOX); herein, we use SO2 to
refer to the same pollutant type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California has a number of nonattainment areas for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and PM2.5,
and the CAA requires states to submit SIP revisions that ensure
reasonable further progress and that demonstrate attainment of the
NAAQS within such areas. See, generally, part D of title I of the CAA.
Reductions from these regulations play a critical role in assuring that
areas such as the South Coast Air Basin and the San Joaquin Valley Air
Basin meet the NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5.

D. What requirements do the regulations establish?

Truck and Bus Regulation
    CARB's Truck and Bus Regulation (i.e., 13 CCR section 2025)
requires fleet (defined as one or more vehicles) owners to upgrade
their vehicles to meet specific performance standards for
NOX and PM. The regulation applies to diesel-fueled trucks
and buses that are privately owned, federally owned, and to publicly
and privately owned school buses, that have a manufacturer's gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds (lbs). (Local
and state government owned diesel-fueled trucks are already subject to
other CARB regulations.) Nearly all of the vehicles affected by the
regulation are on-road vehicles, but the regulation also applies to
yard trucks with off-road engines used for agricultural operations and
two-engine street sweepers with such engines. The regulation exempts
certain categories of trucks and buses, many of which, such as drayage
trucks, are subject to different CARB regulations.
    Key concepts used in the Truck and Bus Regulation include ``2010
Model Year Emissions Equivalent Engine,'' ``PM BACT,'' and ``Verified
Diesel Emission Control Strategy'' (VDECS). As set forth in 13 CCR
section 2025(d)(3), ``2010 Model Year Emissions Equivalent Engine''
means emissions from: (A) An engine certified to the 2004 through 2006
model year (MY) heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard that is
equipped with the highest level VDECS and that reduces NOX
emissions by at least 85%; (B) An engine that was built to the 2004
engine emission standard and was not used in any manufacturer's
averaging, banking, or trading program that is equipped with the
highest level VDECS and that reduces NOX exhaust emissions
by at least 85%; (C) An engine certified to the 2007 MY heavy-duty
diesel engine emissions standard that meets PM BACT and that reduces
NOx exhaust emissions by more than 70%; (D) An engine certified to the
2010 MY or newer heavy-duty certified to the 2010 MY or newer heavy-
duty diesel engine emissions standard that meets PM BACT; (E) A heavy-
duty engine certified to 0.2 grams per brake-horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr)
or less NOX emissions level and 0.01 g/bhp-hr or less PM
emissions level; or (F) An off-road engine certified Tier 4 engine
emissions standard.
    ``PM BACT'' means the technology employed on the highest level
VDECS for PM or an engine that is equipped with an original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) diesel particulate filter and certified to meet the
0.01 g/bhp-hr certification standard. See 13 CCR section 2025(d)(48).
``Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy'' (VDECS) means an emission
control strategy, designed primarily for the reduction of diesel PM
emissions, which has been verified pursuant to the Verification
Procedures. VDECS can be

verified to achieve Level 1 diesel PM reductions (25%), Level 2 diesel
PM reduction (50%), or Level 3 diesel PM reductions (85%). VDECS may
also be verified to achieve NOX reductions. See 13 CCR
section 2025(d) (60).
    The basic requirements of the regulation are set forth in
subsections (e), (f), and (g). Under these subsections, different sets
of requirements are established for subject vehicles with a GVWR 26,000
lbs or less [subsection (f)] and subject vehicles with a GVWR greater
than 26,000 lbs [subsection (g)]. Under subsection (f), with certain
exceptions, subject vehicles with a GVWR 26,000 lbs or less must,
starting January 1, 2015, be equipped with a ``2010 model year
emissions equivalent engine'' pursuant to the schedule shown in table
2. School buses, that otherwise would be subject to subsection (f), are
subject to a different set of requirements in subsection (k). Under
subsection (k), with certain exceptions, all school buses must comply
with PM BACT by 2014.

 Table 2--Compliance Schedule Under Section 2025(f) by Engine Model Year
                      for Lighter Heavy-Duty Trucks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Compliance date
   Existing engine model year      as of January 1       Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 and older..................               2015  2010 model year
                                                      emission
                                                      equivalent.
1996............................               2016
1997............................               2017
1998............................               2018
1999............................               2019
2003 and older..................               2020
2004-2006.......................               2021
All engines.....................               2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under subsection (g), with certain exceptions, subject vehicles
with a GVWR more than 26,000 lbs must, starting January 1, 2012, meet
the PM Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirement and must
upgrade to a 2010 MY emissions equivalent engine pursuant to the
schedule shown in table 3. Fleets with vehicles otherwise subject to
subsection (g) may opt for a different phase-in compliance schedule for
PM BACT but must comply with section 2025(g) by 2023. See 13 CCR
section 2025, subsections (h) (``Small Fleet Compliance Option'') and
(i)(``Phase-in Option'').

 Table 3--Compliance Schedule Under Section 2025(g) by Engine Model Year
                      for Heavier Heavy-Duty Trucks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Compliance date     Compliance date
        Engine model year          install PM filter     2010 engine by
                                      by January 1         January 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 and older..................  No Requirement.....               2015
1994-1995.......................  No Requirement.....               2016
1996-1999.......................  2012...............               2020
2000-2004.......................  2013...............               2021
2005-2006.......................  2014...............               2022
2007 or newer...................  2014 if not OEM                   2023
                                   equipped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 2025(j) allows credits for early PM retrofits, fleets that
have downsized, early addition of newer vehicles, hybrid vehicles,
alternative fueled vehicles and vehicles with heavy-duty pilot ignition
engines that can allow delayed requirements for other heavier trucks in
the fleet. Fleet owners are required to meet the reporting and record
keeping requirements of subsections (r) and (s). Credits are not
transferrable except with appropriate documentation of a change of
business form approved by the EO.
    Subsection (l) provides requirements for drayage trucks and utility
vehicles. Drayage trucks subject to the Drayage Truck Regulation may be
included in the fleet to comply with the requirements of the Truck and
Bus Regulation only if all drayage trucks are included. Starting
January 1, 2023, all drayage truck owners must comply with the
requirements summarized above in tables 2 and 3. Drayage trucks may not
utilize any of the credits in subsection (j) or exemptions and
extensions in subsection (p). Starting January 1, 2021, all private
utility vehicle owners must comply with the requirements summarized
above in tables 2 and 3.
    Subsection (m) provides exemptions for agricultural fleets that
meet the conditions of this subsection and remain below annual mileage
limits specified therein. Starting January 1, 2017, all agricultural
vehicles that have exceeded 10,000 miles in any calendar year since
January 1, 2011, must comply with the requirements summarized above in
tables 2 and 3. This subsection includes a provision, which allows the
CARB EO to exempt vehicles as specialty agricultural vehicles as long
as the vehicles meet the requirements of the subsection and the EO does
not exceed the caps for the number of such vehicles in the San Joaquin
Valley and Statewide. This section also provides an optional phase-in
for log trucks. Starting January 1, 2014, 10 percent of the total log
truck fleet must comply with 2010 MY emissions or equivalent, and by
January 1, 2023, 100 percent of the fleet must be 2010 MY emissions
equivalent.
    Subsection (p) provides for exemptions, delays, and extensions. The
categories of vehicles that may qualify for relief under subsection (p)
include vehicles used exclusively in NOX exempt areas (which
include no counties within the South Coast Air Basin or San Joaquin
Valley), low-mileage construction trucks, unique vehicles, low-use
vehicles, vehicles operating with a three-day pass, vehicles awaiting
sale, and vehicles used solely on San Nicholas or San Clemente Islands.
Extensions in compliance deadlines are also provided

for in subsection (p) for emission control device manufacturer delays
or unavailability of highest level VDECS.
    Subsection (r) includes detailed reporting requirements. Generally,
the reporting requirements apply to owners who have elected to use the
compliance options or credits provided for in the regulation or who
rely on the special provisions in the regulation, such as those for
agricultural provisions, street sweeper provisions, NOX
exempt areas, and low-mileage construction trucks. Subsection (s) sets
forth the record keeping requirements of the regulation, subsection (t)
requires vehicle owners to make records available to CARB, and
subsection (u) establishes record retention requirements.
    Subsections (v) through (z) include provisions that support
compliance and enforcement of the regulation by, for example,
establishing a right of entry for CARB agents [subsection (v)] and by
requiring sellers to provide a specific disclosure concerning the
regulation to buyers [subsection (w)]. Subsection (z) establishes the
penalties for non-compliance. Under this subsection, any person who
fails to comply with the Truck and Bus Regulation may be subject to
civil or criminal penalties under the California Health and Safety Code
sections 39674, 39675, 42400, 42400.1, 42400.2, 42402.2, and 43016.
Drayage Truck Regulation
    CARB's Drayage Truck Regulation (13 CCR section 2027) applies to
owners and operators of certain in-use, on-road, diesel-fueled, heavy-
duty drayage vehicles with a GVWR greater than 26,000 pounds defined as
``drayage trucks.'' Drayage trucks are those that are used for
transporting cargo, such as containerized, bulk, or break-bulk goods
and that operate on or transgress through port or intermodal rail yard
property for the purpose of loading, unloading or transporting cargo,
including transporting empty containers and chassis; or that operate
off port or intermodal railyard property transporting cargo or empty
containers or chassis that originated from or is destined to a port or
intermodal rail yard property. The regulation also applies to owner and
operators of motor carriers that dispatch drayage trucks that operate
in California, marine or port terminals, intermodal rail yards, and
rail yard and port authorities. Owners and operators are subject to the
Drayage Truck Regulation through December 31, 2022. Starting January 1,
2023, drayage trucks will be subject to the Truck and Bus Regulation.
    Section 2027(d) of the Drayage Truck Regulation includes the
requirements and compliance deadlines, grouped into two phases. Phase 1
of the regulation [section 2027(d)(1)] required that, by December 31,
2009, all drayage trucks with a GVWR greater than 33,000 pounds to be
equipped with a 1994-2003 MY engine certified standards to California
or federal emission standards and a level 3 VDECS for PM emissions; or,
2004 or newer MY engine certified to California or federal emission
standards. Drayage trucks with GVWR greater than 33,000 pounds but with
2004 or 2005 engines are allowed extra time to be equipped with a level
3 VDECS (by January 1, 2012 for subject vehicles with MY 2004 engines
and by January 1, 2013 for vehicles with MY 2005 engines). Under Phase
1, by January 1, 2012, all drayage trucks with a GVWR of 26,001 lbs to
33,000 pounds must be equipped with a level 3 VDECS for PM emissions.
Phase 2 [section 2027(d)(2)] requires all drayage trucks to be equipped
with a 1994 or newer MY engine that meets or exceeds 2007 MY California
or federal emissions standards.
    Drayage truck owners must register with the CARB Drayage Truck
Registry, a database that contains information on all trucks that
conduct business at California ports and intermodal rail yards. See
section 2027(e). Sections 2027(d)(3), (4), (5) and (6) include
additional requirements for drayage truck owners, drayage truck
operators, motor carriers and marine or port terminals and intermodal
rail yards, to ensure that the various parties coordinate their
activities to ensure compliance with the emissions standards and
compliance deadlines in Phases 1 and 2.
    The Drayage Truck Regulation provides for the same types of
penalties for non-compliance as described above for the Truck and Bus
Regulation. Sections 2027(h) (``Right of Entry'') and 2027(i)
(``Enforcement'') authorize and support efforts by CARB and other
officials to ensure compliance with the regulation. Section 2023(j) is
a sunset clause that provides that, starting January 2, 2023, drayage
truck would no longer be subject to the provisions of the Drayage Truck
Regulation but rather would be subject to the provisions of the Truck
and Bus Regulation in 13 CCR section 2025.
OGV Clean Fuels Regulation
    CARB's OGV Clean Fuels Regulation (13 CCR section 2299.2) requires
the use of low sulfur marine distillate fuels (instead of heavy fuel
oil) to reduce PM, NOX, and SO2 emissions from
the use of auxiliary diesel and diesel-electric engines, main
propulsion engines, and auxiliary boilers on ocean-going vessels
(OGVs). The regulation applies to owners and operators of OGVs that
operate in any of the Regulated California Waters, which are defined in
the regulation to include, among other areas, all waters within 24
miles of the California baseline (except a specific area off Point
Conception. Unless specifically exempted, the regulation applies to
both U.S.-flagged and foreign-flagged OGVs. Exemptions in the
regulation include, among other vessels, OGVs that pass through
Regulated California Waters but do not enter California internal or
estuarine waters or call at a port, roadstead \5\ or terminal facility;
OGVs owned or operated by any governmental entity (unless used for
commercial purposes); and OGVs when compliance with the regulation is
reasonably determined by the master of the vessel to endanger the
safety of the vessel, its crew, its cargo or its passengers because of
severe weather conditions, equipment failure, fuel contamination or
other extraordinary reasons beyond the master's reasonable control. See
13 CCR 2299.2(c)(1), (3) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Roadstead'' means any facility that is used for the
loading, unloading, and anchoring of ships. See 13 CCR section
2299.2(d)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 2299.2(e)(1) specifies allowable fuels and fuel sulfur
content limits for auxiliary diesel engines, main engines and auxiliary
boilers that must be met while the OGV is operating in Regulated
California Waters. In the first phase, beginning July 1, 2009,
auxiliary diesel engines, main engines and auxiliary boilers on subject
OGVs must use either marine gas oil (MGO), with a maximum of 1.5
percent sulfur by weight, or marine diesel oil (MDO), with a maximum of
0.5 percent sulfur by weight. The ``Phase 1'' sulfur content limit for
MGO would be reduced from 1.5% to 1.0% beginning on August 1, 2012.
Phase 2, beginning January 1, 2014, requires use of either MGO with a
maximum of 0.1% sulfur by weight or MDO with a maximum of 0.1% sulfur
by weight. As such, the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation establishes more
stringent requirements than otherwise required under Federal law, at
least until January 1, 2015.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In 2008, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI (International Convention for
the Prevention of Air Pollution From Ships) to further reduce air
emissions from ships. Among other provisions, the 2008 amendments to
MARPOL Annex VI allowed for the creation of Emission Control Areas
(ECA) by member states allowing them to implement more stringent
requirements than otherwise provided for in Annex VI upon approval
by the IMO. In 2010, the IMO approved a joint application by the
U.S. and Canada for the creation of an ECA, referred to as the North
American ECA. Under the North American ECA, OGVs traveling within a
200 nautical mile zone of the North American coastline are required
to use fuels with no more than 1% sulfur beginning in August 2012
and no more than 0.1% sulfur beginning in January 2015. EPA is
implementing the provisions of MARPOL Annex VI through its ocean-
going vessel rule (75 FR 22895). Under these regulations, both U.S.-
and foreign-flagged ships subject to the engine and fuel standards
of MARPOL Annex VI must comply with the applicable Annex VI
provisions when they enter U.S. ports or operate in most internal
U.S. waters including the Great Lakes, excluding steamships.

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

    Section 2299.2(e)(2) establishes recordkeeping, reporting, and
monitoring requirements including the requirement to retain and
maintain records that document vessel entry to and departure from
Regulated California Waters, completion of any fuel switching
procedures used to comply with the regulations, and types and sulfur
content of fuel used in each auxiliary engine, main engine, and
auxiliary boiler operated in Regulated California Waters. Under
subsection (e) (2), any person subject to the regulation must provide
CARB with access to the OGV for the purpose of determining compliance
with the regulation.
    Under section 2299.2(f), the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation provides
for the same types of penalties for non-compliance as described above
for the Truck and Bus Regulation.
    Section 2299.2(g) allows the EO to exempt, in whole or in part,
vessels from compliance with the fuel and fuel sulfur content
requirements in subsection (e) based on the need for essential
modifications. Essential modifications refer to the addition of new
equipment, or the replacement of existing components with modified
components, that can be demonstrated to be necessary to comply with the
regulation. See 13 CCR 2299.2(d)(10). Eligibility for relief under
subsection (g) is generally cleared in advance by CARB through approval
of an Essential Modification Report that demonstrates the need for
essential modification and that is submitted by the vessel owner or
operator to CARB 45 days prior to entry into Regulated California
Waters.
    Section 2299.2(h) allows CARB, under certain circumstances, to
permit an owner or operator of an OGV to pay noncompliance fees in lieu
of meeting the fuel and fuel sulfur content requirements in subsection
(e) if specific notification requirements are met under subsection
(h)(1). CARB may consider noncompliance fees in lieu of compliance for
any owner or operator of an OGV that demonstrates that noncompliance is
beyond the person's reasonable control under circumstances where the
OGV was, while en route from its last port of call, redirected to a
California port, where the supply of complying fuel is inadequate, or
where the person made an inadvertent purchase of defective fuel. In-
lieu fees may also be assessed for noncompliance by OGVs to be taken
out of service for modifications or based on infrequent visits and need
for vessel modifications. Applicable noncompliance (in-lieu) fees are
shown below in Table 4.

      Table 4--Noncompliance Fee Schedule Under the OGC Clean Fuels
                         Regulation, Per Vessel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Per-port
                         Port visit                           visit fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Port Visited...........................................      $45,500
2nd Port Visited...........................................       45,500
3rd Port Visited...........................................       91,000
4th Port Visited...........................................      136,500
5th or more Port Visited...................................      182,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under subsection (h), CARB assesses the fees at the time of the
port visit, and the fees must be paid prior to leaving the California
port or by a later date approved by CARB. Section 2299.2(h)(5)(D)
allows CARB to enter into enforceable agreements with each port that
will receive the fees. Fees must be used by the ports only to fund
projects reducing PM, NOX, and SO2 within two
miles of port boundaries, or OGVs operated in Regulated California
Waters.
    Section 2299.2(i) establishes the test methods that must be used to
determine compliance with 13 CCR section 2299.2. Subsection (i) allows
the CARB EO to approve alternative test methods if they are
demonstrated to be equally or more accurate than the listed methods.
    Lastly, under section 2299.2(j), the requirements of OGV Clean
Fuels Regulation will cease to apply if and when the CARB EO issues
written findings that Federal requirements are in place that will
achieve equivalent emissions reductions within the Regulated California
Waters and are being enforced within the Regulated California Waters.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the regulations?

    EPA has evaluated the three regulations described in the previous
section of this document against the applicable procedural and
substantive requirements of the Clean Air Act for SIPs and SIP
revisions and has concluded that they meet all of the applicable
requirements. Generally, SIPs must include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well
as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary to meet
the requirements of the Act [see CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)]; must
provide necessary assurances that the State will have adequate
personnel, funding, and authority under State law to carry out such SIP
(and is not prohibited by any provision of Federal to State law from
carrying out such SIP) [see CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)]; must be adopted
by a State after reasonable notice and public hearing [see CAA section
110(l)], and must not interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other
applicable requirement of the Act [see CAA section 110(l)].\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CAA section 193, which prohibits any pre-1990 SIP control
requirement relating to nonattainment pollutants in nonattainment
areas from being modified unless the SIP is revised to insure
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutants,
does not apply to these regulations because they do not represent
pre-1990 SIP control requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. CARB Regulations Meeting CAA SIP Evaluation Criteria

1. Did the State provide aadequate public notice and comment periods?
    Under CAA section 110(l), SIP revisions must be adopted by the
State, and the State must provide for reasonable public notice and
hearing prior to adoption. In 40 CFR 51.102(d), we specify that
reasonable public notice in this context refers to at least 30 days. As
described previously, the three subject regulations were submitted to
EPA by California with requests to ``parallel process'' them pending
final adoption (of the most recent amendments) by CARB. We recognize
the extensive public process that CARB conducted prior to the adoption
of the original versions of the three regulations and the extensive
public process that CARB conducted for the recent amendments and
modifications and expect to determine that CARB will have met the
applicable procedural requirements for SIP revisions upon submittal by
CARB of the final adopted regulations as a SIP revision with the
necessary public process documentation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For example, all three regulations were originally developed
through a series of public workshops and adopted following 45-day
public comment periods. The significant amendments to the Truck and
Bus Regulation and the Drayage Truck Regulation proposed in October
2010 followed a similar process as have the 2011 amendments to the
OGV Clean Fuels Regulation. The modifications to the 2010 amendments
proposed in 2011 for the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation were subject to a supplemental 15-day public comment
period.

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

2. Does the State have adequate legal authority to implement the
regulations?
    CARB has been granted both general and specific authority under the
California Health and Safety Code (H&SC) to adopt and implement these
regulations. California H&SC sections 39600 (``Acts required'') and
39601 (``Adoption of regulation; Conformance to federal law'') confer
on CARB the general authority and obligation to adopt regulations and
measures necessary to execute CARB's powers and duties imposed by State
law. California H&SC sections 43013(a) and 43018 provide broad
authority to achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective emission
reductions from all mobile source categories, including both on-road
and off-road diesel engines. Regarding in-use motor vehicles,
California H&SC sections 43600 and 43701(b), respectively, grant CARB
authority to adopt emission standards and emission control equipment
requirements. Further, California H&SC section 39666 gives CARB
authority to adopt airborne toxic control measures to reduce emissions
of toxic air contaminants from new and in-use nonvehicular sources,
including marine vessels.
    Moreover, we know of no obstacle under Federal or State law in
CARB's ability to implement the regulations. As a general matter, the
CAA assigns mobile source regulation to EPA through title II of the Act
and assigns stationary source regulation and SIP development
responsibilities to the States through title I of the Act. In so doing,
the CAA preempts various types of State regulation of mobile sources as
set forth in section 209(a) (preemption of State emissions standards
for new motor vehicles and engines), section 209(e) (preemption of
State emissions standards for nonroad vehicles and engines) and section
211(c)(4)(A) [preemption of State fuel requirements for motor vehicles,
i.e., other than California's motor vehicle fuel requirements--see
section 211(c)(4)(B)]. For certain types of mobile source standards,
the State of California may request a waiver or authorization for state
emissions standards. See CAA sections 209(b) (new motor vehicles) and
209(e)(2) (most categories of new and non-new nonroad vehicles).
    Notwithstanding the preemption provisions of the CAA, however, we
do not believe that preemption represents an obstacle to implementation
by California with respect to these three particular regulations.
First, the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck Regulation
establish emissions standards for in-use trucks and buses. Because the
requirements do not apply to new motor vehicles or engines and because
the burden for retrofits or replacements does not fall on original
equipment manufacturers, we believe that the preemption under CAA
section 209(a) does not apply and California need not secure a waiver
to enforce the Truck and Bus Regulation or the Drayage Truck
Regulation. See Allway Taxi Inc. v. City of New York, 340 F. Supp. 1120
(S.D.N.Y) (interpreting CAA section 209(a) motor vehicle preemption),
aff'd, 468 F.2d 624 (2d Cir. 1972).
    To the extent that the Truck and Bus Regulation affects nonroad
vehicles or engines, we take note of CARB's authorization request under
CAA section 209(e)(2) for CARB's emissions standards for in-use off-
road diesel-fueled equipment with engines 25 horsepower and greater and
EPA's related notice of opportunity for public hearing and comment
concerning CARB's request. See 75 FR 11880 (March 12, 2010) for the
most recent related EPA announcement concerning CARB's authorization
request for the relevant in-use nonroad emissions standards. Assuming
that EPA issues the relevant authorization requested by CARB, there
will be no obstacle to CARB's enforcement of the provisions of the
Truck and Bus Regulation that apply to nonroad vehicles and engines.
    With respect to the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation, we first note that
State-adopted fuel requirements for nonroad vehicles are generally not
preempted under the CAA. However, there are provisions of Federal law,
other than the CAA, that might be relied upon to challenge State fuel
requirements as preempted. In this instance, we recognize that the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in which the
court upheld CARB's OGV Clean Fuels Regulation against a challenge
grounded in preemption principles. See Pacific Merchant Shipping Ass'n.
v. Goldstene, No. 09-17765 (9th Cir. March 28, 2011). The petitioners
in the Pacific Merchant case may yet appeal the decision to the U.S.
Supreme Court, but at this time, we have no reason to believe that the
case will ultimately be resolved in a manner that takes away CARB's
ability to implement and enforce the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation.
3. Are the regulations enforceable as required under CAA section
110(a)(2)?
    We have evaluated the enforceability of the three subject proposed
regulations with respect to applicability and exemptions; standard of
conduct and compliance dates; sunset provisions; discretionary
provisions; and test methods, recordkeeping and reporting,\9\ and have
concluded for the reasons given below that the proposed regulations
would be enforceable for the purposes of CAA section 110(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ These concepts are discussed in detail in an EPA memorandum
from J. Craig Potter, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation, et al., titled ``Review of State Implementation Plans and
Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,'' dated
September 23, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, with respect to applicability, we find the proposed
regulations would be sufficiently clear as to which persons and which
vehicles or engines are affected by the regulations. For instance, with
respect to the Truck and Bus Regulation, subsections (b) define the
scope and applicability of the regulation in terms of, among other
parameters, type of fuel used and manufacturer's GVWR. Subsection (c)
of the Truck and Bus Regulation clearly identifies categories of
vehicles that are exempt from the regulation, and subsection (d)
provides additional detail on the types of owners and operators and
vehicles covered by the regulation by defining key terms including
``person'' and ``agricultural operations,'' among others. Similar types
of provisions are also found in the Drayage Truck Regulation [see 13
CCR section 2027(b) and (c)] and the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation [see 13
CCR sections 2299.2(b), (c), and (d)].
    Second, we find that the proposed regulations would be sufficiently
specific so that the persons affected by the regulations would be
fairly on notice as to what the requirements and related compliance
dates are. To a large extent, we have already described the substantive
requirements and compliance dates set forth in the proposed regulations
in section I.D of this document. We recognize that CARB intends to
extend certain compliance dates in the latest amendments to the
original regulations but, as discussed in section II.B.4 of this
document, we find that extending the compliance dates would not
interfere reasonable further progress and attainment requirements for
California nonattainment areas with respect to the 1997
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS. See section II.B.4 of this document.
No compliance date in any of the regulations extends past January 1,
2023, which is consistent with the attainment needs for California with
respect to the attainment deadline for the South Coast and San Joaquin
Valley ``extreme'' nonattainment areas for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

    Third, both the Drayage Truck Regulation and OGV Clean Fuels
Regulation contain sunset provisions. In the case of the Drayage Truck
Regulation, the regulation would sunset on December 31, 2022, but after
that date, the requirements of the Truck and Bus Regulation would
apply. See 13 CCR section 2027(j). Thus, regulation of drayage trucks
would continue indefinitely under the terms of the Truck and Bus
Regulation. Under subsection (j) of the OGV Clean Fuels Regulation,
once the CARB EO makes a finding that federal requirements are in place
that will achieve equivalent emissions reduction within California
Regulated Waters and that are being enforced within California
Regulated Waters, the regulation would no longer be in effect. The CARB
EO is expected to make the necessary finding under subsection (j)
sometime after January 1, 2015 when the 0.1% marine fuel sulfur content
limit (applicable within the North American ECA) will become
enforceable by EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard. Given that the 0.1% marine
fuel sulfur content limit will continue to be federally enforceable
after the CARB EO invokes the sunset clause, we find the sunset clause
in the OGC Clean Fuels Regulation to be acceptable.
    Fourth, all three regulations would contain provisions that allow
for discretion on the part of CARB's EO. Such ``director's discretion''
provisions can undermine enforceability of a SIP regulation, and thus
prevent full approval by EPA, but in the instances of ``director's
discretion'' in the three subject regulations, the discretion that can
be exercised by the CARB EO is limited both in scope and application.
As such, we do not find that the ``director's discretion'' provisions
in the proposed regulations would preclude our approval of them for the
purposes of the SIP.
    Lastly, each of the proposed regulations identifies appropriate
test methods and includes adequate recordkeeping and reporting
requirements sufficient to ensure compliance with the applicable
requirements.
4. Do the regulations interfere with reasonable further progress and
attainment or any other applicable requirement of the Act?
    The State's 2007 State Strategy to attain the 1997 PM2.5
and ozone NAAQS relies on these three regulations to help achieve
needed emissions reductions in various nonattainment areas in
California, particularly the South Coast Air Basin and San Joaquin
Valley. A summary of the latest emissions reductions estimates from
these rules in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley 1997
PM2.5 and ozone attainment plans can be found in the State's
2007 State Strategy, the 2009 Status Report on the State Strategy and
the ``Progress Report on Implementation of PM2.5 State
Implementation Plans (SIP) for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley
Air Basins and Proposed SIP revisions,'' dated March 29, 2011. In
separate rulemakings, EPA is evaluating the approvability of the
reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment demonstrations (and
other provisions) for areas that rely on these three regulations. In
general, these rules provide much needed NOX, direct PM and
SO2 reductions, however, the attainment plans do not require
specific reductions from any particular rule. Thus, EPA believes that
the approval of these three regulations, which have never been approved
into the SIP, does not interfere with RFP, attainment or any other
applicable requirement of the Act.
5. Will the State have adequate personnel and funding for the
regulations?
    Chapter XIII of CARB's ``Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed
Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the Truck and Bus Regulation, the
Drayage Truck Regulation and the Tractor-Trailer Greenhouse Gas
Regulation,'' dated October 2010, addresses implementation and
enforcement of the regulations. As described therein, CARB intends to
conduct enforcement of the Truck and Bus Regulation and Drayage Truck
Regulation similarly to enforcement of CARB's commercial vehicle and
school bus idling regulations. CARB's enforcement staff intends to use
the inspection and audit methods that they have developed during the
many years of experience enforcing the Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection
Program (adopted into law in 1988) and the Periodic Smoke Inspection
Program (adopted into law in 1990).
    CARB indicates that enforcement activities will include inspections
at border crossings, California Highway Patrol (CHP) weigh stations,
fleet facilities, and randomly selected roadside locations and audits
of records. See appendix H to CARB's initial statement of reasons for
proposed rulemaking, dated October 2010, cited above. These activities
could result in corrective actions and substantial civil penalties for
non-compliance with the regulations. CARB's enforcement activities are
summarized in annual reports. See, e.g., CARB's 2009 Annual Enforcement
Report (August 2010).
    We recognize the general effectiveness of CARB's motor vehicle
enforcement program and expect CARB's approach to enforcement of the
Truck and Bus and Drayage Truck regulations, as described above, to be
equally effective; however, none of the information we have received or
were able to download from CARB's Web site has identified the specific
additional resources and personnel that CARB has allocated to the Truck
and Bus Regulation. We expect such information to be submitted to EPA
as part of the SIP submittal package contained the final adopted
versions of the regulations.
    Since the original OGV Clean Fuels Regulation became effective,
CARB enforcement staff has conducted over 450 vessel inspections and
the compliance rate, as determined by CARB enforcement staff, is
approximately 95%. See page ES-2 of CARB's Initial Statement of Reasons
for Proposed Rulemaking, Proposed Amendments to the Regulations ``Fuel
Sulfur and Other Operational Requirements for Ocean-Going Vessels
within California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the California
Baseline,'' dated May 2011. Based on CARB's enforcement activities
since the effective date of the original OGV Clean Fuels Regulation, we
believe that CARB has allocated adequate funding and personnel for the
regulation.
6. EPA's Regulation Evaluation Conclusion
    Based on the above discussion, we believe these regulations are
consistent with the relevant CAA requirements, policies and guidance.

C. Proposed Action, Public Comment and Final Action

    For the reasons given above, we believe CARB's Truck and Bus
Regulation, Drayage Truck Regulation, and OGV Clean Fuels Regulation
fulfill all relevant requirements, and thus, EPA is proposing to
approve these regulations under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA once we
receive the final adopted versions as a revision to the California SIP.
If the State substantially revises these submitted regulations from the
versions proposed by the State and submitted for ``parallel
processing,'' this will result in the need for additional proposed
rulemaking on these regulations.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the
next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the
comment period, we intend to publish a final approval

action that will incorporate these regulations into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 29, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-17232 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 5592]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01872]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Rule 12f-1. SEC File No. 270-139, OMB Control No. 3235-0128.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for approval of extension of
the previously approved collection of information provided for in Rule
12f-1 (17 CFR 240.12f-1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
    Rule 12f-1 (the ``Rule''), originally adopted in 1934 pursuant to
Sections 12(f) and 23(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
modified in 1995 and 2005, sets forth the information which an exchange
must include in an application to reinstate its ability to extend
unlisted trading privileges to any security for which such unlisted
trading privileges have been suspended by the Commission, pursuant to
Section 12(f)(2)(A) of the Act. An application must provide the name of
the issuer, the title of the security, the name of each national
securities exchange, if any, on which the security is listed or
admitted to unlisted trading privileges, whether transaction
information concerning the security is reported pursuant to an
effective transaction reporting plan contemplated by Rule 601 of
Regulation NMS, the date of the Commission's suspension of unlisted
trading privileges in the security on the exchange, and any other
pertinent information. Rule 12f-1 further requires a national
securities exchange seeking to reinstate its ability to extend unlisted
trading privileges to a security to indicate that it has provided a
copy of such application to the issuer of the security, as well as to
any other national securities exchange on which the security is listed
or admitted to unlisted trading privileges.
    The information required by Rule 12f-1 enables the Commission to
make the necessary findings under the Act prior to granting
applications to reinstate unlisted trading privileges. This information
is also made available to members of the public who may wish to comment
upon the applications. Without the Rule, the Commission would be unable
to fulfill these statutory responsibilities.
    There are currently 18 national securities exchanges subject to
Rule 12f-1. The burden of complying with Rule 12f-1 arises when a
potential respondent seeks to reinstate its ability to extend unlisted
trading privileges to any security for which unlisted trading
privileges have been suspended by the Commission, pursuant to Section
12(f)(2)(A) of the Act. The staff estimates that each application would
require approximately one hour to complete. Thus each potential
respondent would incur on average one burden hour in complying with the
Rule.
    The Commission staff estimates that there could be as many as 18
responses annually and that each respondent's related cost of
compliance with Rule 12f-1 would be $199.00, or, the cost of one hour
of professional work of a paralegal needed to complete the application.
The total annual related reporting cost for all potential respondents,
therefore, is $3,582 (18 responses x $199.00 per response).
    Compliance with Rule 12f-1 is mandatory. Rule 12f-1 does not have a
record retention requirement per se. However, responses made pursuant
to Rule 12f-1 are subject to the recordkeeping requirements of Rules
17a-3 and 17a-4 of the Act. Information received in response to Rule
12f-1 shall not be kept confidential; the information collected is
public information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    The public may view background documentation for this information
collection at the following Web site: www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: January 27, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01872 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63525-63527]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20099]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0632]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Bay St. Louis, MS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters at the opening of Bay St. Louis, extending the entire
width of the channel, approximately \1/2\ mile south of the Hwy 90
Bridge. This safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and
the marine environment from potential hazards created by the 2023 Swim
Across the Bay. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized the Captain of the Port
Sector Mobile (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. through 10 a.m. on September
17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0632 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Lawrence J. Schad, Sector Mobile, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard finds that
good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM
because we must establish this safety zone by September 17th, 2023, and
lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then
consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule is contrary to public interest because it would delay the
safety measures necessary to respond to potential safety hazards
associated with the 2023 Swim Across the Bay. Immediate action is
needed to protect vessels and mariners from the safety hazards
associated with 2023 Swim Across the Bay.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Sector Mobile (COTP) has determined that
potential

hazards associated with the 2023 Swim Across the Bay on September 17th,
2023, will be a safety concern for any vessels or persons at the
opening of Bay St. Louis, approximately \1/2\ mile south of the Hwy 90
Bridge in Bay St. Louis, MS. This rule is needed to protect the public,
mariners, and vessels from the potential hazards associated with the
2023 Swim Across the Bay.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone, effective
from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on September 17, 2023. The safety zone
encompasses the opening of Bay St. Louis, extending the entire width of
the channel, approximately \1/2\ mile south of the Hwy 90 Bridge in Bay
St. Louis, MS. The location and duration of this safety zone is
intended to protect persons and vessels during the 2023 Swim Across the
Bay that will take place on this navigable waterway. No person or
vessel will be permitted to enter or transit within the safety zone,
unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. Public notifications will be made to the local maritime
community through Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM). To enter the
zone, mariners and other members of the public must also contact the
COTP or designated representative to ask permission to enter the safety
zone on VHF-FM channels 15 and 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If
permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration, of the safety zone. This temporary safety zone
will only restrict navigation for 3 hours near the opening of Bay St.
Louis, approximately \1/2\ mile south of the Hwy. 90 Bridge in Bay St.
Louis, MS, extending the entire width of the channel. Moreover, the
Coast Guard will issue a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) about the zone,
and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A. above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that will prohibit mariners and the public near the opening
of Bay St. Louis, extending the entire width of the channel
approximately \1/2\ mile south of the Hwy 90 Bridge in Bay St. Louis,
MS. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60 (a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 1. A

Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. AddSec.  165.T08-0632 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0632  Safety Zone; Bay St. Louis, MS.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: the opening of
Bay St. Louis, extending the entire width of the channel, approximately
\1/2\ mile south of the Hwy 90 Bridge in Bay St. Louis, MS.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced on September
17, 2023 from 7 a.m. through 10 a.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in Sec.
165.23 as well as the regulations in this section apply to the
regulated area.
    (2) Entry into the zone described in paragraph (a) of this section
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector
Mobile (COTP) or a designated representative.
    (3) Persons or vessels seeking to enter into or transit through the
zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channels 15 and 16 or
by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone.

    Dated: September 11, 2023.
U.S. Mullins,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Mobile.
[FR Doc. 2023-20099 Filed 9-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 5 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 1055]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00161]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January
8, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Gallagher, as duty officer, voted to consider the
items listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined
that no earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Adjudicatory matter; and
    Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 5, 2015.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-00161 Filed 1-6-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31429]
[DOCID:fr03jn10-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-26-000]

Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline LLC; Notice of Baseline Filing

May 27, 2010.
    Take notice that on May 24, 2010, Kinder Morgan Border Pipeline LLC
submitted a baseline filing of its Statement of Operating Conditions
for transportation services provided under section 311 of the Natural
Gas Policy Act of 1978 (``NGPA'').
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, June 7, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-13367 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30302-30303]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG23-144-000.
    Applicants: Clearwater Wind II, LLC.
    Description: Clearwater Wind II, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230505-5056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG23-145-000.
    Applicants: Johnson County Power, LLC.
    Description: Johnson County Power, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date:5/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230505-5066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG23-146-000.
    Applicants: RW Miller Power, LLC.
    Description: RW Miller Power, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230505-5067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: EG23-147-000.
    Applicants: Jack County Power, LLC
    Description: Jack County Power, LLC submits Notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 5/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230505-5069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/23.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2042-044; ER10-1862-038; ER10-1873-018; ER10-
1875-018; ER10-1876-019; ER10-1878-018; ER10-1883-018; ER10-1884-018;
ER10-1885-018; ER10-1888-018; ER10-1893-038; ER10-1934-038; ER10-1938-
039; ER10-1941-018; ER10-1942-036; ER10-1947-019; ER10-2985-042; ER10-
3049-043; ER10-3051-043; ER11-4369-023; ER12-1987-016; ER12-2261-017;
ER12-2645-011; ER16-2218-024; ER17-696-024; ER19-1127-008; ER20-1699-
006; ER23-944-002.
    Applicants: Calpine Community Energy, LLC, Johanna Energy Center,
LLC, Calpine King City Cogen, LLC, Calpine Energy Solutions, LLC, North
American Power Business, LLC, Pastoria Energy Facility L.L.C., Russell
City Energy Company, LLC, O.L.S. Energy-Agnews, Inc., North American
Power and Gas, LLC, Champion Energy, LLC, Champion Energy Services,
LLC, Champion Energy Marketing LLC, Otay Mesa Energy Center, LLC,
Calpine Construction Finance Co., L.P., Calpine Gilroy Cogen, L.P.,
Calpine Power America--CA, LLC, CES Marketing IX, LLC, CES Marketing X,
LLC, Creed Energy Center, LLC, Delta Energy Center, LLC, Geysers Power
Company, LLC, Gilroy Energy Center, LLC, Goose Haven Energy Center,
LLC, Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility, LLC, Los Medanos Energy
Center LLC, Metcalf Energy Center, LLC, Power Contract Financing,
L.L.C., Calpine Energy Services, L.P.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Calpine Energy Services,
L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 5/1/23.
    Accession Number: 20230501-5586.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/22/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2294-008; ER11-3808-007; ER11-3980-007; ER13-
413-008; ER13-534-007; ER13-2103-005; ER13-2414-004; ER15-2330-004;
ER16-131-004; ER20-2696-001; ER17-737-001; ER17-2471-005; ER17-2472-
005; ER18-301-004; ER18-664-005; ER22-645-001; ER18-2214-002; ER18-
2216-002; ER18-2435-004; ER19-1047-003; ER20-2977-001; ER22-1882-002;
ER22-2178-002; ER22-2799-001; ER22-2800-001; ER22-2801-001.
    Applicants: VESI 25 LLC, VESI 24 LLC, VESI 21 LLC, ORNI 50 LLC,
VESI 10 LLC, ORNI 34 LLC, VESIVEC LLC, ORNI 41 LLC, Plumsted 537 LLC,
Stryker 22, LLC, Ormat Dixie Valley LLC, Steamboat Hills LLC, Ormesa
LLC, ONGP LLC, ORNI 43 LLC, Viridity Energy Solutions Inc., VESI Pomona
Energy Storage, Inc., Heber Geothermal Company LLC, ORNI 37 LLC,
Mammoth Three LLC, ORNI 47 LLC, Mammoth One LLC, USG Oregon LLC, ORNI
14 LLC, ORNI 39 LLC, ORNI 18 LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of ORNI 18 LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/2/23.
    Accession Number: 20230502-5280.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2381-013; ER11-2206-014; ER11-2207-014; ER11-
2209-014; ER11-2210-014; ER11-2211-014; ER11-2855-028; ER11-2856-028;
ER11-2857-028; ER11-3727-020; ER12-21-026; ER12-

1711-020; ER13-1150-012; ER13-1151-012; ER13-1991-027; ER13-1992-027;
ER18-814-005; ER19-672-005; ER19-843-005; ER19-1061-005; ER19-1063-005;
ER19-1200-008; ER20-486-005.
    Applicants: Golden Fields Solar III, LLC, Clearway Power Marketing
LLC, Solar Borrego I LLC, Solar Alpine LLC, Solar Blythe LLC, Marsh
Landing LLC, Carlsbad Energy Center LLC, Desert Sunlight 300, LLC,
Desert Sunlight 300, LLC, Alta Wind XI, LLC, Alta Wind X, LLC, High
Plains Ranch II, LLC, Agua Caliente Solar, LLC, El Segundo Energy
Center LLC, Sun City Project LLC, Sand Drag LLC, Avenal Park LLC, Alta
Wind I, LLC, Alta Wind III, LLC, Alta Wind II, LLC, Alta Wind IV, LLC,
Alta Wind V, LLC, Walnut Creek Energy, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to March 3, 2023, Notice of Change in
Status of Agua Caliente Solar, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/2/23.
    Accession Number: 20230502-5279.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-2382-000.
    Applicants: Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.
    Description: Refund Report: Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230505-5182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-643-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to ISA, SA No. 5596; Queue
No. AD1-020 to be effective 2/15/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/5/23
    Accession Number: 20230505-5136
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1832-000.
    Applicants: Homer City Generation, L.P.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of Reactive
Service Tariff to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 5/4/23.
    Accession Number: 20230504-5129
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1833-000.
    Applicants: Bio Energy (Ohio II), LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Bio Energy (Ohio II), LLC Notice of
MBR Cancellation to be effective 5/4/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/4/23.
    Accession Number: 20230504-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1834-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEC-NCEMC NITSA SA No. 210
(2023) to be effective 5/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/4/23.
    Accession Number: 20230504-5151.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1835-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 6899
and CSA, SA No. 6900; Queue No. AD2-091 to be effective 4/5/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230505-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1836-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: Evergreen PV1 LGIA Filing to
be effective 4/21/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230505-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1837-000
    Applicants: PacifiCorp
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Provisional Large Generator
Interconnection Agreement to be effective 5/6/2023.
    Filed Date: 5/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230505-5124.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 5/26/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 5, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10066 Filed 5-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P