6560-50-P

			ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR PART 52

						[FRL-          ]

Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans

for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final Rule.

SUMMARY:  The EPA is making a finding concerning whether or not each
State has submitted a complete State Implementation Plan (SIP) that
provides the basic program elements specified in Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997  8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  By this action, EPA is identifying those
States that:  (i) have failed to make a complete submission for all
requirements; (ii) have failed to make a complete submission for
specific requirements; or (iii) have made a complete submission.  The
findings of failure to submit for all or a portion of a State’s SIP
establish a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) to address the outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the affected States submit, and EPA
approves, the required SIPs.  The findings that all, or portions of a
State’s SIP submission, is complete establishes a 12-month deadline
for EPA to take action upon the complete SIP elements in accordance with
section 110(k).

DATES:  The effective date of this rule is [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  General questions concerning this
notice should be addressed to Mr. Larry D. Wallace, Ph.D., Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail Code
C504-2, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27709;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

  	For questions related to a specific State please contact the
appropriate regional office:

Regional Offices	States

Dave Conroy, Acting Branch Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA New England,
I Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02203-2211.	Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region II, 290 Broadway,
21th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866.	New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico,
and Virgin Islands.

Christina Fernandez, Acting Branch Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch,
EPA Region 111, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2187.	Delaware,
District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
Virginia.

Dick A. Schutt, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, EPA Region IV,
Sam Nun Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth, Street, SW, 12th Floor,
Atlanta, GA 30303.	Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson
Street, Chicago, IL 60604.	Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio,
and Wisconsin.

Tom Diggs, Acting Associate Director Air Programs, EPA Region VI, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733.	Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas.

Joshua A. Tapp, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VII, 901 North
5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101-2907.	Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and
Nebraska.

Cynthia Cody, Unit Leader,  Air Quality Planning Unit, EPA Region VIII
Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop St. (8P-AR),  Denver, CO 80202-1129.	Colorado,
Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming

Lisa Hanf, Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.	Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, and Nevada.

Mahbubul Islam, Manager, State and Tribal Air Programs, EPA Region X,
Office of Air , Waste, and Toxics, Mail Code OAQ-107, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98101.

	Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Table of Contents:

	Background:

	This Action

	Finding of Failure to Submit for States that Failed to Make a Submittal

 	Finding of Failure to Submit Specific Elements of Section 110(a)(2)

 	List of States that Submitted Complete Submissions to Satisfy the
Section 110(a)(2) Requirements

III.	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

	Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act

	Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

	Paperwork Reduction Act

	Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

	Executive Order 13132: Federalism

	Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments

	Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental health
and Safety Risks

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

         Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

	National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

        Congressional Review Act

        Judicial Review

I.  	Background

	On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour
average concentrations.  The 8-hour averaging period replaced the
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed
from 0.12 ppm to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38,856).

	Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a) requires States to submit SIPs that
provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of such NAAQS,
or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.  Section 110(a)
imposes the obligation upon States to make a SIP submission to EPA for a
new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary
depending upon the facts and circumstances.  In particular, the data and
analytical tools available at the time the State develops and submits
the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS necessarily affects the content of
the submission.  The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the State’s existing SIP already
contains.  In the case of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, States typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone
standards.

Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that States must meet in these
SIP submissions.  The requirements include SIP infrastructure elements
such as requirements for modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories
that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
The requirements that are the subject of this action are listed in
EPA’s October 2, 2007 memorandum entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM-2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards.”

Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the
three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs
incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather
are due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due
pursuant to section 172   These requirements are:  (i) submissions
required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to
a permit program as required in part D Title I of the CAA, and (ii)
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA.
Therefore, this action does not cover these specific SIP elements.  This
action also does not pertain to section 110(a)(2)(D), because EPA has
previously addressed that requirement.

As of 2004, States had not submitted complete SIPs to satisfy all of the
section 110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS revision.
 On March 4, 2004, Earth Justice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA’s failure to issue findings of failure to submit
related to these requirements.  Subsequently, EPA entered into a Consent
Decree with Earth Justice which required EPA, among other things, to
complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA’s determinations
pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each State has made
complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007.  Subsequently, EPA
received an extension of the date to complete this Federal Register
notice until March 17, 2008, based upon an agreement to make the
findings with respect to submissions made by January 7, 2008.  In
accordance with the Consent Decree, EPA is making completeness findings
for each State based upon what the Agency received from each State as of
January 7, 2008.  This notice reflects EPA’s determinations with
respect to the section 110(a)(2) requirements, based upon the
submissions made by the States, either certifying that they have already
met the requirements, making a submission to meet any outstanding
requirements, or both.

For those States that have not yet made a submittal, or that made a
submittal that was not complete with respect to each element of section
110(a)(2), EPA is making a finding of failure to submit.  For those
States that did not make any submittal by    January 7, 2008, EPA is
making a finding with respect to all of the section 110(a)(2) SIP
elements.  For those States that did not make a submittal that addressed
all of the section 110(a)(2) elements, EPA is making these findings only
with respect to those specific section 110(a)(2) SIP elements which a
State has not certified that it has met, or not made a SIP submission to
meet, as of January 7, 2008.  These findings establish a 24 month
deadline for the promulgation by EPA of a FIP, in accordance with
section 110(c)(1).  These findings of failure to submit do not impose
sanctions, or set deadlines for imposing sanctions as described in
section 179 of the CAA, because these finding do not pertain to the
elements of a Title I part D plan for nonattainment areas as required
under section 110(a)(2)(I), and because this action is not a SIP call
pursuant to section 110(k)(5).

With respect to the remaining section 110(a)(2) SIP elements in those
States in which EPA has identified specific findings of failure to
submit, EPA is by this action making a finding that the remainder of
such SIPs are complete.  Likewise, with respect to those States for
which EPA has not made any finding of failure to submit concerning the
section 110(a)(2) SIP elements, EPA is by this action making a finding
that such SIPs are complete for all such elements.  These full and
partial completeness findings establish a 12-month deadline for EPA to
take action upon such SIPs in accordance with section 110(k).

II.   This Action

	The EPA is making a finding concerning whether each State has submitted
or failed to submit a complete SIP that provides the basic program
elements of section 110(a)(2)  necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.   For those States that have not yet made a complete
submission, or that have not made a submission that is complete for each
element of section 110(a)(2),  these findings establish a 24-month
deadline for the promulgation by EPA of a FIP addressing these specific
SIP elements, in accordance with section 110(c)(1).  For those States
that have submitted a complete SIP, and for those elements of SIPs in
States for which EPA has identified only partial incompleteness, these
findings establish a 12-month deadline for action upon the SIP, in
accordance with section 110(k).  This action will be effective on
[INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

  	Finding of Failure to Submit for States that Failed to Make a
Submittal

	The following States failed to make a complete submittal to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) by January 7, 2008.  EPA is by this
action starting a 24-month deadline by which time EPA must promulgate a
FIP for the affected States to address section 110(a)(2) requirements,
if the affected States fail to submit, and obtain EPA approval of,  the
SIP revisions necessary to address these requirements.  The States and
territories that are affected by this finding of failure to submit are
the following:

Region I: 	Vermont

Region VI: 	Texas

Region VIII:	North Dakota

Region IX:  	Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Region X: 	Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington.

B  	Finding of Failure to Submit Specific Elements of Section 110(a)(2)

	The following States made submissions that address some, but not all of
the section 110(a)(2) requirements, by January 7, 2008.  EPA is by this
action identifying the specific elements for which States have not made
a complete submission:

Region II:

New York:  The State of New York has failed to submit a SIP addressing
section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).  However, this
requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that remains in place,
and therefore this action will not trigger any additional FIP
obligation.

New Jersey:   The State of New Jersey has failed to submit a SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).
However, this requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that
remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation.

Puerto Rico:  The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has failed to submit a SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).
However, this requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that
remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation.

Virgin Islands:  The Virgin Islands has failed to submit a SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).
However, this requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that
remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation.

Region III:

Maryland:   As required by sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State of
Maryland has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to its part C PSD
permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

Pennsylvania:  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has failed to submit a
SIP addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program) for
only the Allegheny County portion of the Commonwealth.  However, this
requirement has already been addressed by a FIP (Implementation of the
Federal PSD program has been delegated to the Allegheny County Health
Department) that remains in place, and therefore this action will not
trigger any additional FIP obligation. All other areas of the
Commonwealth, exclusive of Allegheny County, has a SIP approved PSD
program in place.

Virginia: The Commonwealth of Virginia has failed to submit a SIP
addressing the part C PSD permit program, which consists of changes
required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page 71699) final rule
that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the Part C regulations at 40 CFR
51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

Washington, D.C.: The District of Columbia has failed to submit a SIP
addressing sections 110(a)(2)(B), (C) (the Part C PSD permit program),
(E)(i), (F) (the public availability of reports), (H), and (J) (with
respect to a part C Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit
program and to public notification under section 127).   The section
110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program) requirement has already
been addressed by a FIP that remains in place, and therefore this action
will not trigger any additional FIP obligation with respect to this
requirement.

West Virginia: The State of West Virginia has failed to make a submittal
with respect to sections 110(a)(2)(B), (E)(i), (G) (with respect to
authority comparable to section 303), (H) and (J) (relating to public
notification under section 127) and (M).  The State of West Virginia has
also failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to the part C PSD permit
program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page 71699) final
rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C regulations at 40
CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

Delaware: As required by sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State of
Delaware has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to its part C PSD
permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the Part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

Region IV:

Florida: The State of Florida has failed to submit a SIP addressing the
emergency episode plan requirement of section 110(a)(2)(G).

Georgia: The State of Georgia has failed to submit a SIP addressing the
emergency episode plan requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G).

North Carolina: As required by sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State
of North Carolina has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to its
part C PSD permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612
page 71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the Part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

Tennessee: As required by sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State of
Delaware has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to its part C PSD
permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the Part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

Region V:

Illinois:  The State of Illinois has failed to submit a SIP addressing
section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).  However, this
requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that remains in place,
and therefore this action will not trigger any additional FIP
obligation.

Minnesota:  The State of Minnesota has failed to submit a SIP addressing
section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program).  However, this
requirement has already been addressed by a FIP that remains in place,
and therefore this action will not trigger any additional FIP
obligation.

Region VI:

Arkansas: As required by section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State of
Arkansas has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to the part C PSD
permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

New Mexico: As required by section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State of
New Mexico has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to the part C
PSD permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

Oklahoma: As required by section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the State of
Oklahoma has failed to submit a SIP addressing changes to the part C PSD
permit program required by the November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612 page
71699) final rule that made NOx a precursor for ozone in the part C
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and in 40 CFR 52.21.

Region IX:

California:  The State of California has failed to submit a SIP
addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) (the Part C PSD permit program) that
applies to some Air Districts within the State.  However, this
requirement has already been addressed for these Air Districts by a FIP
that remains in place, and therefore this action will not trigger any
additional FIP obligation.  All other areas of the State, exclusive of
these Air Districts has an approved PSD program in place.

C. 	List of States that Submitted Complete Submissions to Satisfy the
Section 110(a)(2) Requirements

	The following States have been determined by EPA to have made complete
SIP submissions that address all of the section 110(a)(2) requirements
by January 7, 2008:

Region I:  	Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire

Region IV:	Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and South Carolina

Region V: 	Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin

Region VI: 	Louisiana

Region VII:	Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri

Region VIII:	Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

III.  	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

  		Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act

	This is a final EPA action, but is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b).  The EPA invokes, consistent with past practice (for example, 61
FR 36294), the good cause exception pursuant to APA, 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B).  Notice and comment are unnecessary because no significant
EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to submit SIPs,
or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where States have made no
submissions or incomplete submissions to meet the requirement by the
statutory date.

	Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

	Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is a “significant regulatory action” because it is likely to result
in a rule that may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set
forth in the Executive Order.  Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented
in the docket for this action.

  	Paperwork Reduction Act

	This action does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  This
rule relates to the requirement in the CAA for States to submit SIPs
under section 110(a) to satisfy certain infrastructure and general
authority-related elements required under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
that States submit SIPs that implement, maintain, and enforce a new or
revised NAAQS which satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within 3 years of promulgation of such standard, or shorter period as
EPA may provide. The present final rule does not establish any new
information collection requirement apart from that already required by
law.  Burden means that total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in the
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

	Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

	The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA) or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.  Small entities include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

	For the purpose of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities,

small entity is defined as:  (1) a small business that is a small
industry entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) size standards (See, 13 CFR 121); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50, 000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which
independently owned and operated is not dominate in its field.

	Courts have interpreted the RFA to require a regulatory flexibility
analysis only when small entities will be subject to the requirements of
the rule.  See, Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 668-69 (D.C. Cir. 2000),
cert. den., 532 U.S. 903 (2001).  This rule would not establish
requirements applicable to small entities.  Instead, it would require
States to develop, adopt, and submit SIPs to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2), and would leave to the States the task of determining
how to meet those requirements, including which entities, if any, to
regulate.  Moreover, because affected States would have discretion to
choose the sources to regulate and how much emissions reductions each
selected source would have to achieve, EPA could not predict the effect
of the rule on small entities.

	After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

	Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local and Tribal
governments and the private sector.  Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandate” that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify,
and consider, a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.  The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted.  Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.  The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small government on compliance with
regulatory requirements.

	This action does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of
UMRA that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1
year by either State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate or
to the private sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. It does not create any additional
requirements beyond those of the 1997 8 hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38652;
62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997), therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed.
This rule responds to the requirement in the CAA for States to submit
SIPs under section 110(a) to satisfy certain infrastructure and general
authority-related elements required under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
that States submit SIPs that implement, maintain, and enforce a new or
revised NAAQS which satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within 3 years of promulgation of such standard, or shorter period as
EPA may provide.

	The EPA believes that any new controls imposed as a result of this
action will not cost in the aggregate $100 million or more annually.
Thus, this Federal action will not impose mandates that will require
expenditures of $100 million or more in the aggregate in any 1 year.

	Executive Order 13132: Federalism

	Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.”
“Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct
effects on the States, or the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

	This final rule does not have federalism implications.  It will 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.  The CAA establishes the scheme
whereby States take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS.
This rule will not modify the relationship of the States and EPA for
purposes of developing programs to implement the NAAQS.  Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

	Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

	Governments

	Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely
input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have Tribal implications.” This final rule does not have “Tribal
implications” as specified in Executive Order 13175.  This rule
responds to the requirement in the CAA for States to submit SIPs under
section 110(a) to satisfy certain elements required under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (NAAQS).  Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that States submit SIPs that provide for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS,
and which satisfy the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2),
within 3 years of promulgation of such standard, or within shorter
period as EPA may provide.  The CAA provides for States and Tribes to
develop plans to regulate emissions of air pollutants within their
jurisdictions.  The regulations clarify the statutory obligations of
States and Tribes that develop plans to implement this rule.  The Tribal
Authority Rule (TAR) gives Tribes the opportunity to develop and
implement CAA programs, but it leaves to the discretion of the Tribe
whether to develop these programs and which programs, or appropriate
elements of a program, the Tribe will adopt.

	This rule does not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive
Order 13175.  It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian Tribes, because no Tribe has implemented an air quality
management program related to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  Furthermore,
this rule does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.  The
CAA and the TAR establish the relationship of the Federal government and
Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this rule does
nothing to modify that relationship.  Because this rule does not have
Tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

H.	Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

	Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health and safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children.  If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

	This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe that the environmental health
risks or safety risks addressed by this rule present a disproportionate
risk or safety risk to children.  Nonetheless, we have evaluated the
environmental health or safety effects of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on
children.  The results of this risk assessment are contained in the
NAAQS for the 1997 8-hour ozone, Final Rule [(62 FR 38652) and (62 FR
38856), July 18, 1997].

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

 This rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.  At the time of
proposal of the implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
information on the methodology and data regarding the assessment of
potential energy impacts regarding implementation of the 1997 8-hour
standard was addressed in Chapter 6 of U.S. EPA 2003, Cost, Emission
Reduction, Energy, and Economic Impact Assessment of the Proposed Rule
Establishing the Implementation Framework for the 1997 8-Hour, 0.08 ppm
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, prepared by the Innovative
Strategies and Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 24, 2003.  Subsequently,
EPA issued an Addendum 1 to that analysis for the Phase 1 final rule
(April 30, 2004 (69 FR 33951)) and designated nonattainment areas. By
adopting the more flexible approaches while providing for attainment and
maintenance of the 8-hour NAAQS as required by the CAA for the areas
covered by this rulemaking, additional energy cost associated with more
extensive use of less flexible approaches would be averted.

J.	Executive Order 12898:  Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

	Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice.  Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by
identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not directly affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment. This notice is
making a finding concerning whether each State has submitted or failed
to submit a complete SIP that provides the basic program elements of
section 110(a)(2)  necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

K.  	National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

	Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act of
1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15  U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable.  VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies.  The
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when
the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

	This action does not involve technical standards.  Therefore, EPA did
not consider the use of any VCS.

L 	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). This rule will be
effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER] .

M. 	Judicial Review

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
District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the days from the
date final action is published in the Federal Register.  Filing a
petition for review 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 must
be final, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.

	Thus, any petitions for review of this action related to a findings of
failure to submit related to the requirements of section 110(a) to
satisfy certain elements required under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (NAAQS) must be filed in the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the
date final action is published in the Federal Register.

Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans

for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS – Page 27 of 27

LIST OF SUBJECTS in 40 CFR Part 52

Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Environmental
protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution
control, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

___________________________________

Dated:

____________________________________

Robert J. Meyers,

Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator.

   EPA published a finding that all States had failed to submit SIPs
addressing interstate transport for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS ,
as required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).  See, 70 FR 21,147 (April 25,
2005).

 It should be noted that, while the State of Nevada did not make the
submittal addressing the requirements of section 110(a)(2) by the
January 7, 2008 timeframe specified in the amended Consent Decree with
Earth Justice, the State has subsequently made a submittal to address
these requirements on February 1, 2008 and EPA is currently reviewing
the submittal for completeness and approvability.

 While the District of Columbia did not make the submittal addressing
the aforementioned requirements by the January 7, 2008 timeframe called
for under the Consent Decree with Earth Justice, the District of
Columbia subsequently made a submittal on January 11, 2008 that
addresses the requirements related to sections 110(a)(2)(B), (E)(i), (F)
(with respect to the public availability of reports), (H), and (J) (with
respect to public notification under section 127).  The EPA is currently
reviewing the submittal for completeness. The District of Columbia has
not submitted a part C PSD permit program required under sections
110(a)(2)(C) and (J).  It should be noted, however, that the District of
Columbia is already subject to a FIP for a PSD permit program pursuant
to 40 CFR 52.499.

 The State of North Carolina is currently going through the rulemaking
process to approve the requirements to meet this element of section
110(a)(2) and anticipates making the submittal to address the
requirement by May 2008.

 The State of Tennessee is currently going through the rulemaking
process to approve the requirements to meet this element of section
110(a)(2) and anticipates making the submittal to address the
requirement by May 2008.

 PAGE   2

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 178 (Monday, September 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56597-56598]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20170]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC20-10-000]

Commission Information Collections Activities (Ferc Form Nos. 2
And 2-A); Comment Request; Extension; Errata Notice

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Errata notice for information collections and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on currently approved information
collections, FERC Form No. 2 (Annual Report for Major Natural Gas
Companies) and FERC Form No. 2-A (Annual Report for Non-Major Natural
Gas Companies). This notice corrects and replaces the 30-day notice
published on July 20, 2020. The 60-day notice was published on April
30, 2020 and the initial 30-day notice published on July 20, 2020. The
intial 30-day notice erroneously omitted the burden associated with a
Final rule approved September 9, 2019. In order to correct the
previously published notices, FERC is providing the opportunity for an
additional 30-day comment period.

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due October 14,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments on FERC Form Nos. 2 and 2-A
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) through www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk
Officer. Please identify the OMB control numbers (1902-0028 and 1902-
0030) in the subject line. Your comments should be sent within 30 days
of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.
    Please submit copies of your comments to the Commission (identified
by Docket No. IC20-10-000) by one of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov.
     U.S. Postal Service Mail: Persons unable to file
electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
     Effective 7/1/2020, delivery of filings other than by
eFiling or the U.S. Postal Service should be delivered to Health and
Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: https://www.ferc.gov/filing-instructions. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-
free).
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC Form No. 2, Annual Report for Major Natural Gas
Companies, and FERC Form No. 2-A, Annual Report for Non-Major Natural
Gas Companies.
    OMB Control Nos.: 1902-0028 (FERC Form No. 2), and 1902-0030 (FERC
Form No. 2-A)
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC Form No. 2 and
FERC Form No. 2-A information collections requirements without a change
to the current reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    Abstract: Pursuant to sections 8, 10 and 14 of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA), (15 U.S.C. 717g, 717i, and 717m), the Commission is authorized
to conduct investigations and collect and record data, and to prescribe
rules and regulations concerning accounts, records and memoranda as
necessary or appropriate for purposes of administering the NGA. The
Commission may prescribe a system of accounts for jurisdictional
companies and, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may determine
the accounts in which particular outlays and receipts will be entered,
charged or credited.
    The Commission collects FERC Form Nos. 2 and 2-A information as
prescribed in 18 CFR 260.1 and 18 CFR 260.2. These forms provide
information concerning a company's current performance, compiled using
the Commission's Uniform System of Accounts (USofA).\1\ FERC Form No. 2
is filed by ``Major'' natural gas companies that have combined natural
gas transported or stored for a fee that exceeds 50 million Dekatherms
in each of the three previous calendar years. FERC Form No. 2-A is
filed by ``Non-Major'' natural gas companies that do not meet the
filing threshold for the FERC Form No. 2, but have total gas sales or
volume transactions that exceeds 200,000 Dekatherms in each of the
three previous calendar years.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 18 CFR part 201 (Uniform System of Accounts Prescribed
for Natural Gas Companies Subject to the Provisions of the Natural
Gas Act).
    \2\ FERC Form Nos. 2 and 2-A are part of the ``Forms Refresh''
effort, which is a separate activity and not addressed here. See
Revisions to the Filing Process for Commission Forms, 166 FERC ]
61,027 (2019) (started in Docket No. AD15-11-000 and ongoing in
Docket No. RM19-12-000). OMB issued its decisions on the Forms
Refresh Final Rule in Docket No. RM19-12-000 on June 27, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The forms provide information concerning a company's financial and
operational information. The forms contain schedules which include a
basic set of financial statements: Comparative Balance Sheet, Statement
of Income and Retained Earnings, Statement of Cash Flows, and the
Statement of Comprehensive Income and Hedging Activities. Supporting
schedules containing supplementary information are filed, including
revenues and the related quantities of products sold or transported;
account balances for various operating and maintenance expenses;
selected plant cost data; and other information.
    The information collected assists the Commission in the
administration of its jurisdictional responsibilities and is used by
Commission staff, state regulatory agencies, customers, financial
analysts and others in the review of the financial condition of
regulated companies. The information is also used in various rate
proceedings, industry analyses and in the Commission's audit programs
and as appropriate, for the computation of annual charges. The
information is made available to the public, interveners and all
interested parties to assist in the proceedings before the Commission.
For financial information to be useful to the Commission, it must be
understandable, relevant, reliable and timely. The Form Nos. 2 and 2-A
financial statements are prepared in accordance with the Commission's
USofA and related regulations, and provide data that enables the
Commission to develop and monitor cost-based rates, analyze costs of
different services and classes of assets, and compare costs across
lines of business. The use of the USofA permits natural gas companies
to account for

similar transactions and events in a consistent manner, and to
communicate those results to the Commission on a periodic basis.
Comparability of data and financial statement analysis for a particular
entity from one period to the next, or between entities, within the
same industry, would be difficult to achieve if each company maintained
its own accounting records using dissimilar accounting methods and
classifications to record similar transactions and events. In summary,
without the information collected in the forms, it would be difficult
for the Commission to ensure, as required by the NGA, that a pipeline's
rates remain just and reasonable, respond to Congressional and outside
inquires, and make decisions in a timely manner. On April 30, 2020, the
Commission published a Notice in the Federal Register in Docket No.
IC20-10-000 requesting public comments.\3\ The Commission received no
public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 85 FR 23954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: This notice replaces and corrects the 30-day notice published
on July 20, 2020 (85FR43831); no public comments were received. The
burden and cost estimates have been corrected to include the industry
burden of preparing and submitting in XBRL carried over from RM19-12
(approved by OMB 9/2019). The changes are reflected within the table
below.
    Type of Respondent: Major and Non-Major Natural Gas Companies.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \4\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost \5\ for the information collections as
shown in the following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collections burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \5\ The Commission staff believes the FERC FTE (full-time
equivalent) average cost for wages plus benefits is representative
of the corresponding cost for the industry respondents. Based upon
the FERC's 2019 average cost for salary plus benefits, the average
hourly cost is $80/hour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Annual number
  Information collections (FERC Form      Number of     of responses    Total number     Average burden & cost     Total annual burden      Annual cost
                 No.)                    respondents         per        of  responses      ($) per response        hours & cost ($) \6\         per
                                                         respondent                                                                       respondent ($)
                                                  (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4).....................  (3) * (4) = (5)........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Form No. 2--representing 100 respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden to Comply with Filing                      100               1             100  1,671.67 hrs.; $133,734.  167,167 hrs.;                   133,734
 Requirement.                                                                                $13,373,360.
Burden to Prepare and Submit in XBRL              100               1             100  42.66 hrs.; $3,413......  4,266 hrs.; $341,280...           3,413
 (represented using the same number
 of respondents and responses
 normally received annually).
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Form No. 2 Total.................             100               1             100  1,714.32 hrs.; $137,147.  171,433 hrs.;                   137,147
                                                                                $13,714,700.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Form No. 2-A--representing 81 respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden to Comply with Filing                       81               1              81  296 hrs.; $23,680.......  23,976 hrs.; $1,918,080          23,680
 Requirement.
Burden to Prepare and Submit in XBRL               81               1              81  42.66 hrs.; $3,413......  3,455.46 hrs.; $276,453           3,413
 (represented using the same number
 of respondents and responses
 normally received annually).
                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Form No. 2-A Total...............              81               1              81  338.66 hrs.; $27,093....  27,431.46 hrs.; $2,194,          27,093
                                                                                533.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The number of annual responses related to the FERC Form
Nos. 2 and 2-A is 181 responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Every cost figure in this column is rounded to the nearest
dollar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The industry burden of complying with the filing
requirement is 167,167 hours (rounded) for FERC Form No. 2 and 23,976
hours for FERC Form No. 2-A.
     The industry burden of preparing and submitting in XBRL
carried over from RM19-12 (approved by OMB 9/2019) 100 hours per form
for the first year plus 14 hours per form for the remaining 2 years.
The annual estimated total XBRL hours (100 + 14 + 14 = 128; 128 hrs./3
yrs. = 42.66 hrs. per respondent per response) is 4,266 hours for FERC
Form No. 2 and 3,455.46 hours for FERC Form No. 2-A.
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden and cost of the collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: September 8, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20170 Filed 9-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 65 (Monday, April 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18495-18496]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07808]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0041]

Agency Information Collection Activities; New Emergency
Information Collection Request: Report by State Driver Licensing
Agencies (SDLAs) on the Annual Number of Entry-Level Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) Applicants and Related Data

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below
will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
emergency approval under 5 U.S.C. 1320.13. FMCSA requests approval of
this ICR by 30 days from the publication of this notice. The purpose of
this information collection is to inform the public of the Agency's
development of a mandatory driver-training program primarily for
individuals applying for their first commercial driver's license (CDL).
FMCSA is not aware of any other source for this data. The Agency has
attempted to obtain this information for many years. In its search, the
Agency has explored several other avenues for finding this information.
For example, the Agency considered asking various trade groups
representing private and public truck driving schools for their
cooperation, but soon realized that these entities generally did not
have the desired information either. This ICR would allow State Driver
Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) to furnish this critical data and thereby
inform the design of the CDL driver training program to be proposed by
the Agency for public comment. The Department of Transportation (DOT)
and FMCSA will also use this data to inform future commercial-driving
safety initiatives.

DATES: Please send your comments by May 6, 2015. OMB must receive your
comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2015-0041. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Schultz, Driver and Carrier
Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West

Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Report by SDLAs on the Annual Number of Entry-Level CDL
Applicants and Related Data.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-00XX.
    Type of Request: New information collection.
    Respondents: State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 51 respondents (a report from the
SDLA of each State and the District of Columbia).
    Estimated Number of Responses: 51 responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 19 hours and 30 minutes.
    Form Number: MCSA-5894, ``Request for Data to State Driver
Licensing Agencies''
    Expiration Date: N/A. This is a new information collection.
    Frequency of Response: One-time.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 995 hours (51 respondents x 19 hours
and 30 minutes per respondent, rounded).

Background

    On July 6, 2012, the President signed legislation titled ``Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).'' Section 32304 of
MAP-21 (49 U.S.C. 31305(c)) provides that the Secretary of
Transportation must issue final regulations establishing minimum entry-
level training requirements for individuals before obtaining a CDL for
the first time or prior to upgrading from one class of CDL to another.
The Agency is required to develop instruction and behind-the-wheel
training that will be effective in providing entry-level CDL drivers
the knowledge and skills they need to operate a commercial motor
vehicle safely.
    On September 18, 2014, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and Citizens for Reliable and
Safe Highways sued FMCSA and DOT in the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case no. 14-1183). The plaintiffs
petitioned for an order of mandamus compelling DOT to publish a final
rule on entry-level driver training within 180 days. While as of this
date the court has not ruled on the petition, the court could order
that a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and final rule be drafted
according to a highly expedited schedule. Obtaining this data would
help address this urgent legal issue in a timely manner.
    FMCSA has taken numerous steps toward satisfying the section 32304
mandate. The Agency has conducted two public listening sessions in
conjunction with industry trade shows and engaged its Motor Carrier
Safety Advisory Committee to provide recommendations to support the
rulemaking. FMCSA learned that there is not agreement among
stakeholders about how to satisfy the statutory mandate.
    Next, FMCSA commissioned a neutral convener to analyze the
feasibility of conducting a negotiated rulemaking (Reg Neg) to develop
the regulations (5 U.S.C. 581-590). Based upon the convener's
recommendation, FMCSA, on December 10, 2014, published notice of its
intent to establish an Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee
(ELDTAC) to negotiate proposed regulations to implement section 32304.
On February 12, 2015, the Agency published notice of the first meeting
of the ELDTAC, which was held on February 26-27, 2015 (80 FR 7814). The
FMCSA is currently engaged in regular negotiations with the ELDTAC
expected to go through May 2015 with a target date for publication of
an NPRM of October 15, 2015 (Id. at 7815).
    Despite these efforts and the urgent nature and schedule of the
negotiations, FMCSA lacks certain data that is crucial to its efforts
to satisfy the MAP-21 mandate--for example, the number of individuals
who would require entry-level CDL driver training annually. Given that
this rulemaking will likely be considered ``significant'' within the
meaning of E. O. 12988, obtaining this data is crucial to developing an
NPRM and the required cost-benefit analysis. The data, combined with
other data in the Agency's possession, will also be central to the
ability of ELDTAC to build consensus among the various stakeholders.
    The only known source of the number of individuals who obtain their
first and upgraded CDL each year is the 50 States and the District of
Columbia. The only way the Agency can obtain this information is by
asking the SDLAs to report it to FMCSA.

Public Comments Invited

    The Agency requests emergency processing of this information
request valid for 180 days (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(2)) based on its
determination as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act and its
implementing regulations as follows: The information collection is
``essential'' to FMCSA's safety mission: to reduce crashes, injuries,
and fatalities involving large trucks and buses (44 U.S.C.
3507(j)(1)(A)(ii), 5 CFR 1320.13(a)(1)(ii)). Expedited review is
necessary to minimize public harm that is reasonably likely to result
if normal clearance processes are followed resulting from the operation
of trucks and motor coaches by individuals lacking appropriate driver
training that would be required by this rulemaking (44 U.S.C.
3507(j)(1)(B)(i), 5 CFR 1320.13(a)(2)(i)). In addition, use of the
normal clearance process is reasonably likely to cause a ``court-
ordered deadline to be missed'' (44 U.S.C. 3507(j)(1)(B)(iii), 5 CFR
1320.13(a)(2)(iii)). This ICR is narrowly focused and practical steps
have been taken to obtain this information in the past, as described in
this notice above to minimize its burden on the SDLAs it would apply to
(5 CFR 1320.13(c)).
    You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information
collection, including:
    (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the
performance of FMCSA's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated
burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burden
could be minimized without reducing the quality of the collected
information.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on March 31, 2015.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2015-07808 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 48619]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19955]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From All Terms,
Conditions, Reservations and Restrictions of a Quitclaim Deed Agreement
Between the City of Orlando and the Federal Aviation Administration for
the Orlando International Airport, Orlando, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release
approximately 44.30 acres at the Orlando International Airport,
Orlando, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as
contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the FAA and the City of
Orlando, dated September 27,1976. The release of property will allow
the City of Orlando to dispose of the property for other than
aeronautical purposes. The property is located along the south side of
SR 528 (Beachline), curves south at Semoran Blvd./Jeff Fuqua Blvd., and
continues to an area located to the north of Boggy Creek Road within
the Orlando International Airport. The parcels are currently designated
as non-aeronautical use. The property will be released of its federal
obligations to grant an easement for multimodal transportation corridor
purposes. The fair market value of this parcel has been determined to
be $12,549,000. Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are
available, by appointment only, for inspection at the Greater Orlando
Aviation Authority at Orlando International Airport and the FAA
Airports District Office.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 14, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Greater Orlando
Aviation Authority at Orlando International Airport, and the FAA
Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400,
Orlando, FL 32822. Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be
delivered or mailed to: Marisol C. Elliott, Program Manager, Orlando
Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400,
Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisol C. Elliott, Program Manager,
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida on August 7, 2015.
Bart Vernace,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-19955 Filed 8-12-15; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27860-27863]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11313]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 40 CFR Part 799

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033; FRL-9369-1]
RIN 2070-AD16

Revocation of TSCA Section 4 Testing Requirements for One High
Production Volume Chemical Substance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule implements EPA's decision to revoke certain
testing requirements promulgated under the Toxic Substance Control Act
(TSCA) for the High Production Volume (HPV) chemical substance,
benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-[[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-(phenylimino)-2,5-
cyclohexadien-1-ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amino]- (CAS No. 1324-76-1), also
known as C.I. Pigment Blue 61. After publication in the Federal
Register of a final rule requiring testing for C.I. Pigment Blue 61,
EPA received adequate, existing studies which eliminated the need for
testing.

DATES: This final rule is effective June 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the OPPT Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor
instructions and additional information about the docket available at
http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Yvonne Gonzalez, Chemical
Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
particular interest to those persons who manufacture (defined by
statute to include import), process, or export the chemical substance
identified in this document. Because other persons may also be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
persons that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

II. Background

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    In this document, EPA is amending the TSCA section 4(a) chemical
testing requirements for one HPV chemical substance included in 40 CFR
799.5085. Specifically, the amendment revokes some of the testing
requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61. EPA bases its decision on
information (discussed in Unit III.) received since publication of the
final rule (Ref. 1) that established testing requirements for this
chemical substance.
    In the Federal Register issue of March 16, 2012 (Ref. 2), EPA
issued a direct final rule revoking some or all of the testing
requirements for 10 chemical substances, including C.I. Pigment Blue
61. EPA received an adverse comment pertaining to a statement in the
preamble of the direct final rule that certain full studies for C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 had been claimed as Confidential Business Information
(CBI) and were, therefore, not available to the public, although robust
summaries were available in the docket. The Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF) objected to EPA's placing the robust summaries in the docket
rather than applying the disclosure requirements of TSCA section 14(b)
to the full health and safety studies. Consequently, in accordance with
the procedures described in the March 16, 2012 Federal Register
document (Ref. 2), EPA withdrew the revocation of certain testing
requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 in a separate final rule document
published in the Federal Register issue of May 14, 2012 (Ref. 3), and
also published a proposed rule document in the same Federal Register
issue (Ref. 4) asking for comment. EPA is now issuing the final rule
based on the May 14, 2012 Federal Register proposed rule document (Ref.
4).

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 4(a) of TSCA authorizes EPA to require testing if certain
findings are made. The TSCA section 4(a) findings include:
    1. The chemical substance was produced in substantial quantities.
    2. There are insufficient data upon which the effects of
manufacture, distribution, processing, use, or disposal of a chemical
substance on health or the environment can reasonably be determined or
predicted.
    3. Testing of the chemical substance with respect to such effects
is necessary to develop such data. (See TSCA section 4(a)(1)(B)(i),
(ii), and (iii); see also Ref. 1).
    EPA amends the testing requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61
because some of the findings that EPA made under the criteria listed in
this unit for this chemical substance are no longer supported.

III. Amendment to Chemical Testing Requirements

    On July 17, 2006, the Color Pigments Manufacturers Association
(CPMA) submitted a test plan for C.I. Pigment Blue 61. CPMA also
submitted robust

summaries of existing data which CPMA asked EPA to accept as satisfying
some of the Agency's data needs for C.I. Pigment Blue 61. Some of the
existing data described in the summaries addressed C.I. Pigment Blue
56, a close analog of C.I. Pigment Blue 61, which CPMA requested EPA to
accept as satisfying the Agency's data needs for C.I. Pigment Blue 61,
arguing that there was a sufficiently close structure-activity
relationship (SAR) between the two chemical substances to justify that
request (Refs. 5 and 6). CPMA also asked EPA to accept results for
water solubility and octanol/water partition coefficient that were
obtained by using an alternative method, due to the extremely low
predicted solubility of C.I. Pigment Blue 61, instead of the methods
specified by the test rule (Ref. 5). Finally, CPMA asked EPA to accept
that determining a melting point for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 was not
relevant because the pigment thermally decomposes before it melts (Ref.
5).
    EPA reviewed the submitted information on physical/chemical
properties and decided that melting point, boiling point, and vapor
pressure determinations were not relevant because C.I. Pigment Blue 61
decomposes before it melts and the decomposition temperature had been
reported (Ref. 7). EPA accepted the submitted data on water solubility
as satisfying the Agency's data needs for that endpoint, but did not
accept the calculated value submitted to satisfy the testing
requirement for octanol/water partition coefficient (Ref. 7). EPA
believes the calculated value would, most likely, underestimate the
measured value (Ref. 7) required to be determined by the test rule.
    EPA reviewed CPMA's SAR argument concerning C.I. Pigment Blue 61
and C.I. Pigment Blue 56 and agreed that C.I. Pigment Blue 56 is an
acceptable surrogate for C.I. Pigment Blue 61, thereby allowing
adequate data on C.I. Pigment Blue 56 to satisfy data needs for C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 (Ref. 8). As a result, a biodegradation study of C.I.
Pigment Blue 56, found adequate by an EPA review, satisfies the need
for biodegradation data on C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (Ref. 8). Likewise, a
fish acute toxicity study and a chromosomal damage test of C.I. Pigment
Blue 56, which EPA reviewed and found adequate, will satisfy the data
need for those endpoints (Ref. 9) for C.I. Pigment Blue 61. EPA's
review of the existing data on C.I. Pigment Blue 61 found the study on
mammalian acute toxicity and the bacterial reverse mutation assay to be
adequate to satisfy the data needs for those endpoints (Ref. 9). The
existing study on repeated-dose toxicity, however, did not satisfy the
test requirement for that endpoint (Ref. 9).
    Therefore, EPA is revoking the testing requirements for melting
point, boiling point, vapor pressure, water solubility, biodegradation,
fish acute toxicity, mammalian acute toxicity, bacterial reverse
mutation, and chromosomal damage for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 by removing
those requirements from those listed for that chemical substance in
Table 2 in 40 CFR 799.5085(j). In order to clarify that test
requirements for acute toxicity to Daphnia (an aquatic invertebrate)
and toxicity to algae has not been satisfied by existing studies, and
that the fish acute toxicity test requirement has been satisfied, the
test symbol C2 replaces C1 for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 in Table 2 in 40
CFR 799.5085(j). The testing requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 that
are not revoked include tests for octanol/water partition coefficient,
acute toxicity to Daphnia, toxicity to algae, and combined 28-day
repeated-dose toxicity with a reproduction/developmental toxicity
screen (studies responding to those test requirements were conducted
and submitted pursuant to the test rule and found by EPA to be adequate
(Refs. 10-18)).

IV. Public Comment

    Only one comment was received, from EDF, on the May 14, 2012
Federal Register proposed rule document (Ref. 4). The EDF comment
indicated support for the May 14, 2012 Federal Register proposed rule
document (Ref. 4) that revoked some of the testing requirements for
C.I. Pigment Blue 61. The EDF acknowledged steps were taken to address
the concerns that motivated the previous filing of an adverse comment.
Namely, the submitter of the C.I. Pigment Blue 61 studies had withdrawn
the CBI claim on the studies and the studies were made available to the
public. The full studies and EDF's comment are included in the docket
for the May 14, 2012 Federal Register proposed rule document (Ref. 4).

V. Economic Analysis

    In the economic impact analysis for the final rule (Ref. 1)
establishing testing requirements for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 and 16 other
chemical substances, the Agency estimated the total testing cost to
industry to be $4.03 million for all 17 chemical substances included in
that final rule, with an average of approximately $237,000 per chemical
substance (Ref. 19). This total included an additional 25% in
administrative costs. An amendment to the final rule revoking testing
requirements for coke-oven light oil (coal) reduced the total cost to
industry to an estimated $3.7 million for the remaining 16 chemical
substances, with an average compliance cost of approximately $232,000
per chemical substance. This final rule, combined with the direct final
rule revoking all or some of the test rule requirements for 9 other
chemical substances (see Ref. 1), would have the effect of further
reducing the total testing cost by an estimated $1.5 million
(approximately 41%) (Ref. 20). In addition, the 25% administrative
costs would be eliminated for these tests. The reduced total cost for
the remaining 12 chemicals is estimated to be $2.2 million (i.e., $3.7
million minus $1.5 million), with an average compliance cost per
chemical substance of approximately $184,000 (Ref. 20).

VI. Export Notification

    Persons who export or intend to export C.I. Pigment Blue 61 are and
will remain subject to TSCA section 12(b) export notification
requirements (See 40 CFR part 707, subpart D).

VII. References

    As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for
this final rule under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033. The
following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this action. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. EPA. Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Final
Rule. Federal Register (71 FR 13708, March 16, 2006) (FRL-7335-2).
Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0001.
2. EPA. Revocation of TSCA Section 4 Testing Requirements Certain
High Production Volume Chemical Substances; Direct Final Rule.
Federal Register (77 FR 15609, March 16, 2012) (FRL-9335-6).
Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0402.
3. EPA. Withdrawal of Revocation of TSCA Section 4 Testing
Requirements for One High Production Volume Chemical Substance;
Final Rule. Federal Register (77 FR 28281, May 14, 2012) (FRL-9350-
2). Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0414.
4. EPA. Revocation of TSCA Section 4 Testing Requirements for One
High Production Volume Chemical Substance; Proposed Rule. Federal
Register (77 FR

28340, May 14, 2012) (FRL-9350-1). Document EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-
0415.
5. CPMA. Letter to EPA from J. Lawrence Robinson concerning existing
data and test plan. July 17, 2006. Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-
2005-0033-0185.
6. CPMA. Letter to EPA from J. Lawrence Robinson concerning existing
data and test plan. May 9, 2007. Document ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-
0246.
7. EPA. Memorandum from Diana Darling, Industrial Chemistry Branch
(ICB), Economics, Exposure, and Technology Division (EETD), OPPT, to
Greg Schweer, Chemical Information and Testing Branch (CITB),
Chemical Control Division (CCD), OPPT. Testing requirements and
existing data for physical/chemical properties of the HPV test rule
chemical, C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (CAS No. 1324-76-1). May 17, 2007.
Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0280.
8. EPA. Memorandum from Bob Boethling, Exposure Assessment Branch
(EAB), OPPT, to Greg Schweer, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of SAR
argument and a biodegradation test concerning an HPV test rule
chemical, C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (CAS No. 1324-76-1). May 15, 2007.
Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0279.
9. EPA. Email and attached review from David Brooks, Risk Assessment
Division (RAD), OPPT, to Greg Schweer and Catherine Roman, CITB,
CCD, OPPT. Review of C.I. Pigment Blue (CAS No. 1324-76-1). August
22, 2007. Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0286.
10. CPMA. Robust summaries submitted for C.I. Pigment Blue 61 on
octanol/water partition coefficient, acute toxicity to Daphnia,
toxicity to algae, and combined 28-day repeated-dose toxicity with a
reproduction/developmental toxicity screen. Submitted on November
14, 2008. Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0318.
11. CPMA. Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient Test study with C.I.
Pigment Blue 61. Submitted on April 13, 2012. Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0440.
12. CPMA. Acute Toxicity Study in the Daphnia Magna with C.I.
Pigment Blue 61. Submitted on April 13, 2012. Document ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0443.
13. CPMA. Fresh Water Algal Growth Inhibition Test with C.I. Pigment
Blue 61 study. Submitted on April 13, 2012. Document ID number EPA-
HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0442.
14. CPMA. A Combined 28-Day Repeated Dose Toxicity Study with the
Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test Study of C.I.
Pigment Blue 61 of Rats by Oral Gavage. Submitted on April 13, 2012.
Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0445.
15. EPA. Memorandum and attached review from Tracy Williamson, ICB,
EETD, OPPT, to Jim Willis, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of Determination
of Log Kow for C.I. Pigment Blue 61. Submitted January 20, 2010.
Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-0033-0404.
16. EPA. Email and attached review from Ryan Wallace, EAD, OPPT, to
Jeff Santacroce, RDMB, IMD, OPPT; Scott Sherlock, EAD, OPPT; and
Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of acute toxicity to
Daphnia of C.I. Pigment Blue 61(CAS No. 1324-76-1). Submitted June
14, 2012. Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0450.
17. EPA. Email and attached review from Ryan Wallace, EAD, OPPT, to
Jeff Santacroce, RDMB, IMD, OPPT; Scott Sherlock, EAD, OPPT; and
Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of toxicity to algae of
C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (CAS No. 1324-76-1). Submitted July 11, 2012.
Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0453.
18. EPA. Email and attached review from Ryan Wallace, EAD, OPPT, to
Jeff Santacroce, RDMB, IMD, OPPT; Scott Sherlock, EAD, OPPT; and
Catherine Roman, CITB, CCD, OPPT. Review of repeat-dose toxicity of
C.I. Pigment Blue 61 (CAS No. 1324-76-1). Submitted June 14, 2012.
Document ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0448.
19. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Final Section 4 Test Rule for
High Production Volume Chemicals. Prepared by Economic Policy and
Analysis Branch (EPAB), EETD, OPPT. October 28, 2005. Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0131.
20. EPA. Email from Stephanie Suazo to Catherine Roman. RE:
``Revised Economic Analysis for Revocation of Testing Requirements''
with attached economic analysis. December 14, 2009. Document ID
number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0033-0350.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule only eliminates existing requirements; it does not
otherwise impose any new or revised requirements. As such, this action
is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
as a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866,
entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993). Nor does it impose or change any information collection burden
that requires additional review by OMB under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    Because this final rule eliminates existing requirements without
imposing any new or revised requirements, the Agency certifies pursuant
to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.), that this action will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
    For the same reasons, it is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1531-1538), and does not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments or impose a significant intergovernmental mandate, as
described in UMRA sections 203 and 204. This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), or federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999).
    Since this action is not economically significant under Executive
Order 12866, it is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), and Executive Order 13211,
entitled ``Actions concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
    This action does not involve technical standards; 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.
    The final rule does not involve special consideration of
environmental justice related issues as specified in Executive Order
12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).

 IX. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 6, 2013.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 799--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 799 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625.

0
2. In Sec.  799.5085, revise CAS No. ``1324-76-1'' in Table 2 of
paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  799.5085  Chemical testing requirements for first group of high
production volume chemicals (HPV1).

* * * * *
    (j) * * *

                              Table 2--Chemical Substances and Testing Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Required tests (see table 3 of
             CAS No.                      Chemical name              Class                this section)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1324-76-1........................  Benzenesulfonic acid, [[4-                2  A4, C2, F1.
                                    [[4-(phenylamino)phenyl][4-
                                    (phenylimino)-2,5-
                                    cyclohexadien-1-
                                    ylidene]methyl]phenyl]amin
                                    o]-

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-11313 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 217 (Thursday, November 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55880-55881]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24448]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-470-000]

Freeport LNG Development, L.P., FLNG Liquefaction 4, LLC; Notice
of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Train
4 Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
Freeport LNG Train 4 Project (Project). Freeport LNG Development, L.P.
and FLNG Liquefaction 4, LLC (collectively referred to as Freeport
LNG), request authorization (FERC Docket No. CP17-470-000) to site,
construct, and operate pipeline, natural gas liquefaction and export
facilities near Freeport in Brazoria County, Texas. The Project would
be constructed as an expansion of Freeport LNG's existing Quintana
Island Terminal (Terminal), as well as associated pretreatment and
pipeline facilities, for the purpose of liquefying domestic natural gas
for export.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC
staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate
mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy,
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency participated as cooperating
agencies in the preparation of the EA. A cooperating agency has
jurisdiction by law or special expertise regarding environmental
impacts involved with the proposal, and is involved in the NEPA
analysis.
    The EA addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following project facilities:
     One LNG train;
     one natural gas pretreatment unit;
     minor modifications to existing facilities, and
     10.6 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability to
federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies;
elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native
American tribes;

potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. The EA is
only available in electronic format. It may be viewed and downloaded
from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the Environmental Documents
page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition,
the EA may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the FERC's
website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General Search, and enter the docket number in
the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP17-470). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the
more useful they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the
opportunity to consider your comments prior to making its decision on
this project, it is important that we receive your comments on or
before December 3, 2018.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on the Project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the Project docket numbers
(CP17-470-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more
fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or
judicial review of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants
affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor
status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and
direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately
represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you
intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.

Questions?

    Additional information about the Projects is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link also
provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: November 2, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-24448 Filed 11-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 189 (Monday, October 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 45946]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0016]

Pipeline Safety: Underground Natural Gas Storage Facility Annual
Report

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of OMB approval.

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

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is announcing OMB approval of
the annual report for Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities.

DATES: Operators should submit the first annual report form for the
2017 calendar year by March 15, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Stewart, Program Analyst,
Office of Pipeline Safety Operations Systems Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA regulations at 49 CFR 191.17 require
each operator of an underground natural gas storage facility to submit
an annual report on DOT PHMSA Form 7100.4-1 by March 15, for the
preceding calendar year, except that the first annual report must be
submitted by July 18, 2017. PHMSA extended the due date for the
submission of the first annual report, as stipulated in PHMSA's posting
on its Web page (https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/underground-storage-annual-report-submission-extension). This annual report, originally required
by July 18, 2017, would have captured data for the 2016 calendar year.
PHMSA is revising the date of the first submission of the annual
report. The first annual report now will be due on March 15, 2018, and
will collect reported information for the 2017 calendar year.
    OPS will post this information and further filing instructions on
OPS's Web site at http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 26, 2017, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2017-21004 Filed 9-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-PDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY