[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24712-24719]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10918]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558; FRL-9993-79-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan,
Louisiana; Attainment Demonstration for the St. Bernard Parish 2010 SO2
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that the State of Louisiana
submitted to EPA on November 9, 2017 with supplements provided on
February 8, 2018, August 24, 2018 and October 9, 2018. The purpose of
this revision is to provide for attainment of the 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
in the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area. This plan
(herein called a ``nonattainment plan'') includes Louisiana's
attainment demonstration and other elements required under the Clean
Air Act (CAA). In addition to an attainment demonstration, the
nonattainment plan addresses the requirements for meeting reasonable
further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS, implementation
of reasonably available control measures and reasonably available
control technology (RACM/RACT), base-year and projection-year emission
inventories, enforceable emissions limitations and control measures,
and contingency measures. EPA concludes that Louisiana has
appropriately demonstrated that the nonattainment plan provisions
provide for attainment of the 2010 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS
in the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area by the
applicable attainment date and that the nonattainment plan meets the
other applicable requirements under the CAA. This action is being taken
in accordance with the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available at www.regulations.gov or at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 6 Office, Air and
Radiation Division, Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, TX. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact
the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Imhoff, EPA Region 6 Office,
Regional Haze and SO2 Section, 1445 Ross Avenue, (Mail code
ARSI), Dallas, TX 75202-2750,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Major Issues Raised by Commenters and Our Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the
annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations
does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with appendix T of
40 CFR part 50. See 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). On
August 5, 2013, EPA designated a first set of 29 areas of the country
as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including the St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area within the State of
Louisiana. See 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C.
These ``round one'' area designations were effective October 4, 2013.
Section 191(a) of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs for areas
designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS to EPA within
18 months of the effective date of the designation, i.e., by no later
than April 4, 2015 in this case. These SIPs are

required to demonstrate that their respective areas will attain the
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from
the effective date of designation, which is October 4, 2018, in
accordance with CAA sections 191-192.
    Section 172(c) of the CAA lists the required components of a
nonattainment plan submittal. The base year emissions inventory
(section 172(c)(3)) is required to show a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of all relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area.
The nonattainment plan must identify and quantify any expected
emissions from the construction of new sources to account for emissions
in the area that might affect reasonable further progress (RFP) toward
attainment, or that might interfere with attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS, and it must provide for a nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) program (section 172(c)(5)). The attainment demonstration must
include a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures taken by the state will provide
for RFP and expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (section 172(c)(2),
(4), (6), and (7)). The nonattainment plan must include an analysis and
provide for implementation of RACM, including RACT (section 172(c)(1)).
Finally, the nonattainment plan must provide for contingency measures
(section 172(c)(9)) to be implemented either in the case that RFP
toward attainment is not made, or in the case that the area fails to
attain the NAAQS by the attainment date.
    On April 23, 2014, EPA issued a guidance document entitled,
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions'' (2014 guidance). This 2014 guidance provides
recommendations for the development of SO2 nonattainment
SIPs to satisfy CAA requirements (see, e.g., sections 172, 191, and
192). An attainment demonstration must also meet the requirements of 40
CFR part 51, subparts F and G, and 40 CFR part 51, appendix W (the
Guideline on Air Quality Models; ``the Guideline''), and include
inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on
which the state has based its projected attainment.
    For a number of areas, including the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana
SO2 Nonattainment Area, EPA published a document on March
18, 2016, that pertinent states had failed to submit the required
SO2 nonattainment plan by the submittal deadline. See 81 FR
14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for
the potential imposition of new source review and highway funding
sanctions, and for EPA to promulgate a Federal implementation plan
(FIP) under section 110(c) of the CAA. Louisiana submitted a
nonattainment plan for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment
Area on November 9, 2017 and supplemented it on February 8, 2018. On
February 26, 2018, EPA determined that the State's SO2
Nonattainment Area SIP revision for St. Bernard Parish was complete
under 40 CFR part 51, app. V. As a result of EPA's February 26, 2018
completeness determination, and pursuant to the Clean Air Act 179(a),
sanctions that would have applied, no longer apply upon such a
determination of completeness. Furthermore, upon issuance of this final
approval of Louisiana's SIP submittal, EPA's FIP obligation will cease
to apply.
    On April 19, 2018, we published a proposed rulemaking action to
approve the 2010 SO2 Primary NAAQS Nonattainment Area SIP
revision for St. Bernard Parish, submitted by the State of Louisiana on
November 9, 2017 and first supplemented on February 8, 2018. See 83 FR
17349. The April 19, 2018 action proposed approval of the following CAA
SIP elements: The attainment demonstration for the SO2 NAAQS
and enforceable emissions limits, which included an Agreed Order on
Consent (AOC) dated February 2, 2018 for the Rain CII Carbon, LLC.
(Rain) facility; the reasonable further progress (RFP) plan; the
reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available
control technology (RACT) demonstration; the emission inventories; and
the contingency measures. We also proposed to find that the State had
demonstrated that its current Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
program covered the 2010 SO2 NAAQS; therefore, no revision
to the SIP was required for the NNSR element. Comments on the original
proposal were required to be received by May 21, 2018. We received
timely comments on the proposal.
    After the close of the public comment period to the April 19, 2018
proposal, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)
submitted additional information to EPA on August 24, 2018. The
additional information was submitted to us partly in response to a
public comment received on the April 19, 2018 proposal from United
States Senator from Louisiana, Bill Cassidy. Senator Cassidy's comment
letter expressed concern that Rain would need to modify the February
2018 AOC entered between Rain and LDEQ as Rain did not believe that it
could meet the limits set forth in the AOC without an additional
extension to the compliance dates. In response to the comment, and to
determine feasible emission limits for operations during transitions
from exhaust flow through the hot stack to flow through the heat
recovery boiler (referred to as the cold stack), LDEQ granted an
extension of the deadline of the February 2018 AOC on April 27, 2018.
LDEQ then issued a revised AOC on August 2, 2018. An air quality
modeling analysis was submitted to EPA on August 24, 2018 to
specifically demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS with the revised
limits in the August 2018 AOC. EPA reviewed the new modeling analysis
and found some errors and omissions. In response, LDEQ submitted an
updated modeling analysis on October 9, 2018. The AOC (signed by LDEQ
and Rain August 2, 2018 and submitted to EPA on August 24, 2018), and
the October 9, 2018 modeling files (also submitted by LDEQ) serve as a
supplement to the November 9, 2017 and February 8, 2018 SIP submittals
and are intended to address the public comment by incorporating certain
additional AOC revisions (dated August 2, 2018) and supporting modeling
into the 2010 SO2 Primary NAAQS Nonattainment Area SIP
revision for St. Bernard Parish. All correspondence related to the
supplemental August 24, 2018 and updated October 9, 2018 modeling
analyses and the revised August 2, 2018 AOC are included in the public
docket to this action.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the related correspondence, please see the public docket
at EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on February 8, 2019
(84 FR 2801), EPA proposed to approve Louisiana's August 24, 2018 and
October 9, 2018 updated modeling files as a supplement to the November
9, 2017 SIP and February 8, 2018 submittals. The State's submittal and
attainment demonstration included all the specific attainment elements
mentioned above, including new SO2 emission limits and
associated control technology efficiency requirements for the calcining
plant, currently owned and operated by Rain CII Carbon. Rain's new
SO2 emission limits were developed in accordance with EPA's
2014 guidance as referenced above. Comments on EPA's supplemental
proposed rulemaking were due on or before March 11, 2019. EPA received
timely comments on the supplemental proposed approval for Louisiana's
nonattainment area plan for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana
Nonattainment Area. The comment

letters received in response to the supplemental February 8, 2019
proposal and our earlier April 19, 2018 proposal are available in the
docket for this final rulemaking action. EPA's summary of the more
significant comments and EPA's responses are provided below. We respond
to all comments received on both the original and supplemental
proposals in a separate response to comment document available in the
public docket for this action. For a comprehensive discussion of
Louisiana's SIP submittal and EPA's analysis and rationale for approval
of the State's submittal and attainment demonstration for this area,
please refer to EPA's April 19, 2018 proposed approval and February 8,
2019 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

II. Summary of Major Issues Raised by Commenters and Our Responses

    We received five written comment letters in response to our
original and supplemental proposals for approval of the SIP revisions
for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area relevant to
both actions.\2\ We received comments from Sierra Club on both the
April 19, 2018 proposal and the February 8, 2019 supplemental proposal;
one comment letter from Congressman Cassidy on the April 19, 2018
proposal, and comment letters from the Louisiana Chemical Association
(LCA) on both the April 19, 2018 proposal and the February 8, 2019
supplemental proposal. To review the complete set and text of the
comments received, please refer to the publicly posted docket for this
rulemaking as identified above. A document titled ``Response to
Significant Comments on the Attainment Demonstration for the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in St.
Bernard Parish, Louisiana,'' also is included in the docket to this
action and contains a complete list of comments and our detailed
responses to all comments. Below, we provide a summary of some of the
more significant comments received and a summary of EPA's responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We also received five anonymous public comments on the April
19, 2018 proposed rulemaking action that were not relevant to the
proposal. Please see the separate Responses to Significant Comments
document for more detailed information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments in Support

    Comment: EPA received supportive comments from LCA on the April 19,
2018 initial proposed approval and on the February 8, 2019 supplemental
proposal. The commenter expressed support for LDEQ's approach to the
SIP and EPA's proposed approval.

EPA Response

    EPA acknowledges the commenter's support.

Attainment Demonstration Comments

    Comment: We received comments from Sierra Club stating that the
2016 monitored design value (DV) is just below the standard and that
the attainment demonstration does not provide adequate assurance that
air quality impacts will remain below the NAAQS.

EPA's Response

    We disagree that the attainment demonstration does not provide
adequate assurance that air quality impacts will remain below the
NAAQS. The SO2 demonstration SIP and the modeling, which is
part of the SIP, indicate that the SO2 health-based standard
will be attained in and around St. Bernard Parish, thus protecting the
health of the inhabitants.
    The SO2 emissions in St. Bernard Parish have continued
to decline, the total emission rate with updated permits declining 21%
from 2017 to 2018--from 9117 tpy to 7170 tpy. This decline in emissions
along with the emission limits specified in the revised Rain AOC will
maintain the reduced measured SO2 concentrations at the
monitors in St. Bernard Parish. Through the 4th quarter of 2018 (the
most recent data available at this time), the SO2
concentration data submitted to the AQS shows the 1st and 4th highest
SO2 2018 concentrations at the Vista monitor were 66.9 and
40.3 ppb respectively. The design value for 2018 certified by the State
and subject to EPA review and concurrence is 59 ppb (154.6 [mu]g/m\3\),
a significant decline from the 2016 design value of 73 ppb (191.2
[mu]g/m\3\).

Modeling Comments

    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club) asserted that in reviewing a
state plan, EPA can approve, disapprove, partially approve, partially
disapprove and issue its own plan. EPA may not fill the gaps in a
facially deficient SIP without first concluding that the plan is
deficient in some respect. Here, EPA has performed its own modeling as
part of the proposed SIP approval, and in doing so, has blurred the
lines between appropriate review and action on the State submittal, and
its obligation to take Federal action in the absence of a complete and
lawful SIP.
    In addition, the commenter argues that neither the State's nor
EPA's modeling provide adequate assurance that air quality impacts in
St. Bernard Parish will remain below the NAAQS. EPA's modeling and the
State's modeling appear to be fundamentally inconsistent as in Table 2
of the proposed rule the agency indicates that the maximum
SO2 impacts in St. Bernard Parish will be 190.8 [mu]g/m3
while the State's own submittal concludes that the maximum impacts are
191.4 [mu]g/m3.

EPA Response

    Nothing in the Clean Air Act forecloses EPA from conducting an
analysis to assist in its review and evaluation of the State's SIP
submittal. EPA's modeling was an integral part of our review and
evaluation of the State's SIP submittal to verify that the NAAQS was
fully protected at all relevant locations when accounting for all
measures in the SIP. In this case, EPA's modeling confirmed the State's
analysis; our modeling was provided to show our process and to assess
our reasons for approving the SIP submittal. We also consider the
comment moot based on the State's August 24, 2018 and October 9, 2018
supplements to the SIP in which the State conducted its own additional
modeling analysis to support the August 2, 2018 revised AOC.
    EPA contacted LDEQ to confirm why the maximum SO2
concentration in LDEQ Secretary Brown's letter \3\ was slightly
different (by 0.6 [mu]g/m\3\) from the value in the State's modeling
files. LDEQ indicated that Secretary Brown's letter was based on
preliminary modeling conducted in July 2018 to determine limits for the
proposed AOC revision.\4\ After that modeling was conducted, additional
updates were made to emissions for other St. Bernard Parish sources to
make sure that the modeling inventory was accurate, and LDEQ remodeled
and provided the October 9, 2018 supplement. The modeled impacts are
below the level of the 1-hour primary SO2 NAAQS (196 [mu]g/
m\3\) and demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour SO2 primary
NAAQS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See August 24, 2018 Letter from Chuck Carr Brown, Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality to Anne Idsal, (former) Regional
Administrator submitting Supplemental Information and the August 2,
2018 Executed Administrative Order on Consent available in the
docket for this action. See docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558-
0032.
    \4\ See Email from Vennetta Hayes to Robert Imhoff on March 18,
2019 included in docket to this action
email_Hayes_to_Imhoff_03182019.pdf.
    \5\ For all related correspondence, please see the public docket
at EPA-R06-OAR-2017-0558-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club) took issue with the State's
exclusion from modeling of several major SO2 sources to the
west because

they did not cause modeled gradients >3.5 [mu]g/m\3\ at any receptors
in St. Bernard Parish and to characterize their contribution through
the background concentrations. The commenter states that the use of 3.5
[mu]g/m\3\ as a threshold is arbitrary to define significant
contribution to the nonattainment area.

EPA Response

    EPA used several factors in evaluating and concurring with the
State's decision to exclude the sources to the west from the modeling.
In the State's judgment, the distance to these western sources (>25km
to the Parish boundary), and the low maximum concentrations and the
small impact gradients modeled for these sources in the western edge of
St. Bernard Parish support the determination that their impacts not be
included in the modeling or characterized in the modeling through the
use of the background monitor value added to the modeling
concentration.
    EPA's guidance \6\ is that distant sources (beyond a 10-20 km range
from St. Bernard) need not be included in the modeling unless they are
very large (on the order of 5,000 to 10,000 tpy or more for ranges
beyond 20 km). In our 1-hour NO2 and SO2 modeling
guidance, we specifically indicate that in many situations sources
beyond 10 km would not need to be included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ June 29, 2010 memo from Steve Page, Guidance Concerning the
Implementation of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS for the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For St. Bernard there were limited options for the background
monitor data because the existing monitors are directly impacted by
nearby sources under certain wind directions. The option chosen was to
use a monitor, Meraux, located in St. Bernard Parish, to best
characterize background concentrations because of its proximity. Since
the Meraux monitor was impacted by Valero refinery emissions which were
directly included in the model, LDEQ excluded the data when winds were
from directions that could transport Valero's emissions to this
monitor. Valero is located to the west of the Meraux monitor. EPA
acknowledges that the exclusion of wind directions from the Valero
refinery to the Meraux background monitor also means that the
background does not include all potential contributions from the remote
(>20km) sources to the west. As discussed above, none of these sources
would normally be included in the modeling directly due to their size
and distance. However, because of the exclusion of certain wind
directions coupled with relatively few point sources in the included
wind directions that made up the Meraux monitor's background data, out
of an abundance of caution, EPA requested that the State model the
remote western sources to ensure that their exclusion was reasonable
and would not impact the attainment demonstration if they were
included.
    EPA's concern was whether the attainment demonstration modeling
would show a projected value to the east of Rain very near the standard
during Rain's normal operations. In that case, if the excluded sources
to the west had the potential for an appreciable impact there would be
a concern that the modeled DV could exceed the standard if the impact
from those sources were included. In order to make sure that there was
no appreciable potential impact from these sources to the west, LDEQ
agreed to look at sources individually and also ensure that they were
not omitting a cluster of sources that could have potential impacts
much higher than 3.5 [mu]g/m\3\. LDEQ chose the value of 3.5 [mu]g/
m\3\, which is less than 50% of the 3 ppb (7.86 [mu]g/m\3\) Significant
Impact Level that LDEQ has used in their permitting program for the 1-
Hour SO2 NAAQS. LDEQ's analysis was conservative as it
assessed the potential of the sources to add 3.5 [mu]g/m3 to a receptor
anywhere in St. Bernard Parish. For these sources to the west to play a
role in the attainment demonstration, their impact would have to occur
at a time and at a receptor that was very near the standard in St.
Bernard Parish. The use of the <3.5 [mu]g/m\3\ was not as a
significance threshold but as a conservative factor assessing the
potential impacts anywhere in St. Bernard Parish from these sources. As
long as the modeled maximum design value to the east of Rain in the
absence of these sources to the west was more than 3.5 [mu]g/m3 below
the NAAQS, then even if all the western sources were included in the
modeling they could not have caused a violation of the NAAQS.
    The result of the modeling for the attainment demonstration was
that the highest design values were projected to the west of Rain
during periods with winds out of the east. The excluded western sources
cannot add to this design value as they are downwind of the area of
highest modeled concentration during this period. The highest values to
the east of Rain under any scenario were projected to be more than 10
[mu]g/m\3\ below the standard. Given that there were only two potential
remote sources that were over 1,000 tpy to the west and they both had
modeled impacts below 3.5 [mu]g/m\3\ and were not above the clustering
threshold, we know that the sources could not endanger the attainment
demonstration if they were included in the modeling. EPA noted that the
low concentrations modeled for these sources comports with the guidance
from appendix W 8.3.3 (b) i-iii. Further, these maximum modeled impacts
occurred at the extreme western boundary of St. Bernard Parish and
declined to the east where the maximum design value was located.
    The table below gives the distance from the excluded sources from
the west to the modeled maximum design value to the east of Rain that
occurs during one stage of Rain's operation and their 2014 NEI
emissions. Based on the 2014 NEI emissions and distance to the maximum
modeled design value east of Rain it was appropriate to not include
these sources to the west in the model. LDEQ's analysis to consider
these sources to the west for inclusion in the modeling was
conservative and provided additional support to the conclusion that
inclusion of these sources would not impact the attainment
demonstration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Distance to
                                            modeled max   2014 Emissions
             Excluded source               east of rain        (tpy)
                                               (km)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Chemical--Fortier...........              29            1154
Valero Refining--St. Charles............              41             212
Rain CII Carbon--Norco..................              42            2710
Motiva Refinery--Norco..................            42.5             226
Shell Chemical--Norco...................            42.8             177
Union Carbide--St Charles...............            46.5             413
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club) noted that as part of its
attainment demonstration, the State modeled a transition from hot to
cold stack operations from January 8 through January 9, 2017. The
analysis found the highest modeled design value was for the cold stack
alone with an emission rate of 510 lb/hr. The modeled DV of 192.4 [mu]/
m3 is within 2% of the standard. Yet the actual emissions for the cold
stack shown in Figure 1 indicate that there are several hours with
emissions above this limit of 510 lb/hr. The commenter states that
neither LDEQ nor EPA explain how the 510 lb/hr limit will be enforced,
which further gives rise to the representativeness of such a small
sample size that was chosen to exemplify the transition. There is no
comparison to other transition periods and no justification of why the
single 33-hour period modeled from January 2017 is representative of a
worst case and an assurance that 510 lb/hr is not exceeded more
frequently. The fact that even this one period chosen for the analysis
has hourly emissions exceeding the limit suggests that a historical
examination of all transition periods and their associated hot and cold
stack emissions is warranted.

EPA Response

    The purpose of the use of the transition was to use the stack
parameters (e.g. stack temperature and flow velocity) for an actual
transition to give realistic parameters (that is those that the plant
can reliably maintain) to model the allowable emission rates throughout
the transition period. As stated in the TSD, reduced SO2
emission rates were derived from modeling and Rain must achieve them to
attain the standard. The few hours with rates above the new emission
rate limit are not pertinent to compliance since the 510 lb/hr limit
was not in place at the time in January 2017. The August 2, 2018 AOC
specifies both the stack parameters and the emission rate to be
maintained during normal operation through the cold stack and at the
different stages of transition and the model indicates that the
standard will be met under all these conditions. While the use of data
from an actual transition gives confidence that the plant can
successfully meet the conditions of the AOC, examination of past
additional transitions would not add value.
    Compliance with the 510 lb/hr limit on the cold stack is achieved
through the automated control and monitored by the installed CEM system
which measures both concentration and mass flow rate. The emission rate
required is programmed into the system and it governs the operational
parameters of the scrubber to achieve the desired rate. The emission
rate attained is recorded directly and reported for compliance.
    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club) questioned the choice to use
rural dispersion coefficients in an area they believe to be urban. The
commenter asserts that modeling should have been run with both rural
and urban coefficients.

EPA Response

    LDEQ stated that rural coefficients were appropriate since the
surrounding rivers, lakes, and wetlands would tend to minimize the
urban heat island effect. In particular, the wind direction for the
highest design values is from the east which contains an extensive
wetland. See our full Response to Significant Comments document for a
detailed analysis of the land use around the facility and in the
region. EPA agrees with LDEQ that this choice was appropriate for this
analysis and running the model with urban coefficients was not
appropriate or necessary.
    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club), argues that Louisiana's SIP
revision, the AOC, or EPA's approval does not provide understandable
conditions and emission limits for the Rain CII Carbon, LLC facility.
The commenter argues that the AOC contains numerous overlapping, and in
some cases, inconsistent standards that govern the same pollutant.
Moreover, the AOC includes many alternatives for compliance, none of
which involve actually measuring or monitoring the pollution emitted by
the facility. Because the SIP fails to include any meaningful way for
LDEQ or EPA to monitor compliance, the emission limits and compliance
obligations must be revised so that the conditions are clear, specific,
and unambiguous.

EPA Response

    We disagree with the comment. As to the first part of the comment
over inconsistent standards for the same pollutant, the AOC provides
clear requirements at all stages of operation of the plant to ensure
attainment of the NAAQS. At every operational stage, the operational
conditions (temperature, flow and emission rate) needed are unequivocal
and distinct. As illustrated in Figure 5 from the supplemental TSD and
repeated in the detailed Response to Comment document included in the
docket to this action, the requirements do not overlap as stated by the
commenter--each block is distinct (they do not overlap) and the
required conditions are specific.
    As to the comment regarding alternatives for compliance, as stated
above and illustrated in Figure 5 from the supplemental TSD, the
requirements for compliance are specific and distinct for each
operational phase. The cold stack requirements are directly measured
and reported. Compliance with the hot stack requirements is monitored
by measurements of temperature and flow rates and a verified emission
rate equation. The equation is based on a mass balance of the sulfur
contained in the input green coke and output calcined coke determined
through composite samples taken throughout the operational day. It
should be noted that the hours of operation of the hot stack either by
stand-alone operation or during transitions are limited. The stand-
alone hours of operation are limited by the permit to less than 500
hours per year. According to Rain's 2017 Title V Specific Requirements
Report \7\ the plant operated the hot stack-alone 435 hours (5% of the
time) and transition operations 394 hours (4.5% of the time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Title_V_Specific_Requirements_Report_2017.pdf included in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Procedural and Other Comments

    Comment: One commenter (Sierra Club) stated that EPA's original
proposal and supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking fail to meet
the Clean Air Act's statutory deadline for issuing a FIP, and the
agency must impose sanctions for failing to submit a lawful SIP. Under
Section 192, these SIPs are required to demonstrate that their
respective areas will attain the NAAQS no later than 5 years from the
date of the nonattainment designation--here, no later than August 5,
2018. However, Louisiana failed to timely submit a nonattainment SIP
for St. Bernard Parish; on March 18, 2016, EPA published a final rule
for failure to submit a nonattainment SIP. This started an 18-month
sanction clock ending on September 18, 2017. EPA's February 26, 2018
determination of completeness letter to LDEQ is not a substitute for a
finding of the Administrator that the State has come into compliance,
and therefore the agency must impose sanctions. Lastly, the State's
supplemental modeling was not submitted until October 9, 2018--two
months after the deadline.

EPA Response

    We disagree with the Commenter. With regard to the Commenter's
statements on sanctions, we find the comments are outside the scope of
the proposal and supplemental proposal

actions and not germane to our original or supplemental proposed action
to approve the SIP, since the determination of completeness and
correction of deficiency that stopped the above-referenced sanctions
clock occurred before we proposed this SIP approval, and therefore we
are not required to respond to the comment. Further, under EPA's rules
implementing mandatory sanctions, it is clear that sanctions clocks
started by a finding of failure to submit per 40 CFR 52.31(c)(1) are
terminated by the finding that the state has corrected the deficiency
via a letter from the Administrator to the Governor, under 40 CFR
52.31(d)(5). Moreover, under Delegation 7-67, the authority to make
this finding is delegated to Regional Administrators, who may re-
delegate this authority to Division Directors.\8\ In this case, the
completeness finding under 40 CFR part 51, app. V, was made by the
delegated Division Director and communicated to the State by a letter
signed by EPA on February 26, 2018.\9\ Under the CAA, once such finding
is made and a SIP submittal is deemed complete, the imposition of New
Source Review and highway funding sanctions ceases to apply. With
regard to the October modeling files, as stated previously, these
served as an update to the November 9, 2017 and February 8, 2018 SIP
submittals and were intended to address a specific public comment by
incorporating certain additional AOC revisions (dated August 2, 2018)
and supporting modeling into the 2010 SO2 Primary NAAQS
Nonattainment Area SIP revision for St. Bernard Parish. Specifically,
the October modeling files were submitted by LDEQ to correct some
errors and omissions in the August 24, 2018 modeling. The October 2018
modeling analysis, including the revised August 2, 2018 AOC emission
limits for the Rain facility (emission limits effective August 2,
2018), resulted in concentrations below the level of the 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS and demonstrate attainment of the 1-hour
SO2 primary NAAQS before the attainment deadline of October
4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See docket for a copy of the 7-67 Delegation.
    \9\ See docket for a copy of this letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the commenter is incorrect with regards to the
attainment date. As detailed in the background section above, the
``round one'' area designations were effective October 4, 2013. SIPs
are required to demonstrate that their respective areas will attain the
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 5 years from
the effective date of designation, which is October 4, 2018. With
regard to a FIP obligation mentioned by the commenter, as we noted
above, any duties EPA has to promulgate a FIP are outside the scope of
this SIP approval action, and therefore we are not required to respond
to the comment, however, such alleged duties will terminate upon
issuance of this final rulemaking approval action, thus EPA's FIP
obligation will cease to apply.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's finding of failure to
submit triggered a requirement that the EPA promulgate a FIP within two
years of the finding--i.e., by and March 18, 2018--unless, by that time
(a) the state has made the necessary complete submittal and (b) EPA has
approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. Since
Louisiana missed the deadline for a complete submittal EPA must impose
a nonattainment FIP for St. Bernard Parish.

EPA Response

    With regard to the Commenter's statements on the FIP, we find that
any duties EPA has to promulgate a FIP are outside the scope of this
SIP approval action, and therefore we are not required to respond to
the comment. However, we note that in any case such alleged duties will
terminate upon EPA's final approval of the SIP.

III. Final Action

    EPA has determined that Louisiana's SO2 nonattainment
plan meets the applicable requirements of sections 110, 172, 191, and
192 of the CAA. EPA is approving Louisiana's November 9, 2017 SIP
submission, as supplemented by the State on February 8, 2018, August
24, 2018 and October 9, 2018, for attaining the 2010 primary 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS for the St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana
Nonattainment Area and for meeting other nonattainment area planning
requirements. This SO2 nonattainment plan includes
Louisiana's attainment demonstration for the SO2
nonattainment area. The nonattainment area plan also addresses
requirements for RFP, RACT/RACM, enforceable emission limits and
control measures, base-year and projection-year emission inventories,
and contingency measures. Louisiana has also demonstrated it met the
requirements regarding NNSR for SO2 and this NNSR program
already is part of the SIP.
    EPA is approving into the Louisiana SIP the provisions of Rain
Carbon CII's Administrative Order, issued August 2, 2018, that
constitute the SO2 operating and emission limits and their
associated monitoring, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. EPA is approving these provisions as a source-specific
SIP revision.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of revisions
to the Louisiana source-specific requirements as described in the Final
Action section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office (please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information). Therefore, these
materials have been approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally
enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective
date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 29, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 21, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. Section 52.970 is amended by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (d), adding an entry for ``Rain CII Carbon
in St. Bernard Parish'' at the end of the table; and
0
b. In the second table in paragraph (e) titled ``EPA Approved Louisiana
NonRegulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures'', adding the
entry ``St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana Nonattainment Area Plan for the
2010 Primary 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide NAAQS'' at the end of the table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.970   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                                   EPA-Approved Louisiana Source-Specific Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           State approval/
          Name of source               Permit or order        effective               EPA approval date                           Comments
                                            number              date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Rain CII Carbon in St. Bernard      In the Matter of Rain        8/2/2018  5/29/2019 [Insert Federal Register      Amended Administrative order on
 Parish.                             CII Carbon LLC, St.                    citation].                              Consent dated 8/2/18. Pyroscrubber
                                     Bernard Parish.                                                                (EQT 004) and Waste Heat Boiler/
                                                                                Baghouse (EQT 0003).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) * * *

                                      EPA Approved Louisiana NonRegulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
       Name of SIP provision        Applicable geographic  submittal date/            EPA approved date                         Explanation
                                    or nonattainment area  effective date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana       St. Bernard Parish,    11/9/2017, 2/8/ 5/29/2019 [Insert Federal Register      Revised AOC dated 8/2/2018 submitted
 Nonattainment Area Plan for the     Louisiana SO2            2018, 8/24/   citation].                              8/24/2018. Revised modeling
 2010 Primary 1-Hour Sulfur          Nonattainment Area.      2018, 10/9/                                           submitted 10/9/2018.
 Dioxide NAAQS.                                                      2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-10918 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 28568]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11342]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72125; File No. SR-OCC-2013-804]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Withdrawal of an Advance Notice in Connection With a Proposed
Change to its Operations in the Form of a Private Offering by OCC of
Senior Unsecured Debt Securities

May 8, 2014.
    On June 10, 2013, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 806(e)(1) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement
Supervision Act of 2010 (``Clearing Supervision Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4(n)(1)(i),\2\ an advance notice relating to a proposal to permit
OCC to issue senior unsecured debt securities in a private placement
offering. Notice of the advance notice was published in the Federal
Register on July 15, 2013.\3\ The Commission did not receive any
comments in response to the advance notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 12 U.S.C. 5465(e)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(n)(1)(i).
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69955 (July 10,
2013), 78 FR 42125 (July 15, 2013), (SR-OCC-2014-804).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 15, 2014, OCC notified the Commission of its withdrawal
of the advance notice (SR-OCC-2013-804) from consideration by the
Commission.\4\ The Commission is hereby publishing notice of the
withdrawal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Letter from Stephen M. Szarmack, Vice President and
Associate General Counsel, The Options Clearing Corporation, to
Office of the Secretary, Commission (January 15, 2014).

    By the Commission.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-11342 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37239-37241]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-484-000]

Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Application
and Establishing Intervention Deadline

    Take notice that on May 22,2023, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star) 4700 State Route 56, Owensboro, KY
42301, filed an application under to section 7(b) of the Natural Gas
Act (NGA) and part 157 of the Regulations of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission requesting authorization for its Abandonment by
Sale of Kansas Domestic Meters Project. The Project consists of abandon
by sale to Kansas Gas Service, a Division of ONE Gas, Inc. (KGS) some
1,042 domestic meters in the State of Kansas. This project is part of
Southern Star's ongoing effort to eliminate ownership and operation of
domestic meters associated with farm taps on its system. Abandonment of
these domestic meters by sale to a qualified local distribution company
in Kansas will enable Southern Star to more effectively manage its
system, reduce operating costs, and minimize potential liability, while
ensuring that the landowners behind these domestic meters will not only
continue to receive safe and reliable service, but receive such service
from an entity whose primary business is the local distribution of
natural gas. Southern Star estimates the total cost of the Project to
be $1,976,966, all as more fully set forth in the application which is
on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-
3676 or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to
Cindy C. Thompson, Director, Regulatory, Compliance and Information
Governance, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., 4700 State Route
56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email
at [email protected].
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest
the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding.
There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The
deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on
June 22, 2023. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments
is explained below.

    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments
may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a
whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your
comments, the more useful they will be.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\2\ any person \3\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. Protests must comply with the requirements specified in
section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations.\4\ A protest may
also serve as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it
also seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \3\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
    \4\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly
recorded, please submit your comments on or before June 22, 2023.
    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or
protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Project docket number CP23-484-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using
the eFiling feature, which is located 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.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making; first select ``General'' and then select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by
mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must
reference the Project docket number (CP23-484-000).

To file via USPS: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426
To file via any other courier: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1
and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected].
    Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project
will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will
receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are
issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process.
    The Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of
a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
For instructions on how to intervene, see below.

Interventions

    Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities,\5\ has the option to file a motion
to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to
request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to
subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \6\ and the regulations under the NGA \7\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is June 22, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
the your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could
include your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \7\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both
instances, please reference the Project docket number CP23-484-000 in
your submission.
    (1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's
eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select
``General'' and then select ``Intervention.'' The eFiling feature
includes a document-less intervention option; for more information,
visit https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/document-less-intervention.pdf.; or
    (2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along
with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your
motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP23-484-
000.

To file via USPS: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426
To file via any other courier: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene
(option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected].
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email at: Cindy C. Thompson, Director, Regulatory,
Compliance and Information Governance, Southern Star Central Gas
Pipeline, Inc., 4700 State Route 56, Owensboro, Kentucky 42301, or at
[email protected].
    Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor must be served on the
applicant and all other parties to the proceeding. Contact information
for parties can be downloaded from the service list at the eService
link on FERC Online. Service can be via email with a link to the
document.

    All timely, unopposed \8\ motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1).\9\ Motions to intervene that
are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely, and may be
denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for
being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived
and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule
214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\10\ A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or
electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The applicant has 15 days from the submittal of a motion to
intervene to file a written objection to the intervention.
    \9\ 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1).
    \10\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. 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 which 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. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 22, 2023.

    Dated: June 1, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12181 Filed 6-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 78 (Thursday, April 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22756-22759]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09426]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74758; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

April 17, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 7, 2015, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its current Priority Customer Rebate
Program (the ``Program'') to modify the volume thresholds of tiers 1-
5.\3\ Under the Program, the Exchange proposes to credit each Member
the per contract amount set forth in the table below resulting from
each Priority Customer \4\ order transmitted by that Member which is
executed on the Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes
(excluding mini-options, Priority Customer-to-Priority Customer Orders,
PRIME AOC Responses, PRIME Contra-side Orders, PRIME Orders for which
both the Agency and Contra-side Order are Priority Customers, and
executions related to contracts that are routed to one or more
exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/
Crossed Market Plan referenced in MIAX Rule 1400), provided the Member
meets certain volume thresholds in a month as described below. For each
Priority Customer order transmitted by that Member which is executed
electronically on the Exchange in MIAX Select Symbols, MIAX will
continue to credit each member at the separate per contract rate for
MIAX Select Symbols.\5\ For each Priority Customer order submitted into
the PRIME Auction as a PRIME Agency Order, MIAX will continue to credit
each member at the separate per contract rate for PRIME Agency
Orders.\6\ The volume thresholds are calculated based on the customer
average daily volume over the course of the month. Volume will be
recorded for and credits will be delivered to the Member Firm that
submits the order to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74007 (January 9,
2015), 80 FR 1537 (January 12, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2014-69); 72799
(August 8, 2014), 79 FR 47698 (August 14, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-40);
72355 (June 10, 2014), 79 FR 34368 (June 16, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-
25); 71698 (March 12, 2014), 79 FR 15185 (March 18, 2014) (SR-MIAX-
2014-12); 71283 (January 10, 2014), 79 FR 2914 (January 16, 2014)
(SR-MIAX-2013-63); 71009 (December 6, 2013), 78 FR 75629 (December
12, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-56).
    \4\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s). See MIAX Rule
100.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Release Nos. 74291 (February 18,
2015), 80 FR 9841 (February 24, 2015)(SR-MIAX-2015-09); 74288
(February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9837 (February 24, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-
08); 71700 (March 12, 2014), 79 FR 15188 (March 18, 2014) (SR-MIAX-
2014-13); 72356 (June 10, 2014), 79 FR 34384 (June 16, 2014) (SR-
MIAX-2014-26); 72567 (July 8, 2014), 79 FR 40818 (July 14, 2014)
(SR-MIAX-2014-34); 73328 (October 9, 2014), 79 FR 62230 (October 16,
2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-50).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 72943 (August 28, 2014),
79 FR 52785 (September 4, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-45).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Per contract
 Percentage thresholds of national customer volume in multiply-    Per contract    Per contract     credit for
         listed options classes listed on MIAX (Monthly)              credit      credit in MIAX   PRIME agency
                                                                                select symbols       order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.00%-0.40%.....................................................           $0.00           $0.00           $0.10
Above 0.40%-0.75%...............................................            0.10            0.10            0.10
Above 0.75%-1.75%...............................................            0.15            0.20            0.10
Above 1.75%-2.40%...............................................            0.17            0.20            0.10
Above 2.40%.....................................................            0.18            0.20            0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other aspects of the Program will remain the same as before.
Consistent with the current Fee Schedule, the Exchange will continue to
aggregate the contracts resulting from Priority Customer orders
transmitted and executed electronically on the Exchange from affiliated
Members for purposes of the thresholds above, provided there is at
least 75% common ownership between the firms as reflected on each
firm's Form BD, Schedule A. In the event of a MIAX System outage or
other interruption of electronic trading on MIAX, the Exchange will
adjust the national customer volume in multiply-listed options for the
duration of the outage. A Member may request to receive its credit
under the Priority Customer Rebate Program as a separate direct
payment.
    In addition, the rebate payments will continue to be calculated
from the first executed contract at the applicable threshold per
contract credit with the rebate payments made at the highest achieved
volume tier for each contract traded in that month. For example, if
Member Firm XYZ, Inc. (``XYZ'') has enough Priority Customer contracts
to achieve 3.25% of the national customer volume in multiply-listed
option contracts during the month of April, XYZ will receive a credit
of $0.18 for each Priority Customer contract executed in the month of
April.
    The purpose of the Program is to encourage Members to direct
greater Priority Customer trade volume to the Exchange. Increased
Priority Customer volume will provide for greater liquidity, which
benefits all market participants. The practice of incentivizing
increased retail customer order flow in order to attract professional
liquidity providers (Market-Makers) is, and has been, commonly
practiced in the options markets. As such, marketing fee programs,\7\
and customer posting incentive programs,\8\ are based on attracting
public customer order flow. The Program similarly intends to attract
Priority Customer order flow, which will increase liquidity, thereby
providing greater trading opportunities and tighter spreads for other
market

participants and causing a corresponding increase in order flow from
such other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section 1(b).
    \8\ See NYSE Arca, Inc. Fees Schedule, page 4 (section titled
``Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications for
Executions in Penny Pilot Issues'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific volume thresholds of the Program's tiers were set
based upon business determinations and an analysis of current volume
levels. The volume thresholds are intended to incentivize firms that
route some Priority Customer orders to the Exchange to increase the
number of orders that are sent to the Exchange to achieve the next
threshold and to incent new participants to send Priority Customer
orders as well. Increasing the number of orders sent to the Exchange
will in turn provide tighter and more liquid markets, and therefore
attract more business overall. Similarly, the different credit rates at
the different tier levels were based on an analysis of revenue and
volume levels and are intended to provide increasing ``rewards'' for
increasing the volume of trades sent to the Exchange. The specific
amounts of the tiers and rates were set in order to encourage suppliers
of Priority Customer order flow to reach for higher tiers.
    The credits paid out as part of the program will be drawn from the
general revenues of the Exchange.\9\ The Exchange calculates volume
thresholds on a monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Despite providing credits under the Program, the Exchange
represents that it will continue to have adequate resources to fund
its regulatory program and fulfill its responsibilities as a self-
regulatory organization while the Program will be in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \11\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Priority Customer Rebate
Program is fair, equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory. The
Program is reasonably designed because it will incent providers of
Priority Customer order flow to send that Priority Customer order flow
to the Exchange in order to receive a credit in a manner that enables
the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its
market quality for all market participants. The Program is also
reasonably designed because the proposed credits are within the range
of credits assessed by other exchanges employing similar rebate
programs. The proposed rebate program is fair and equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory because it will apply equally to all
Priority Customer orders. All similarly situated Priority Customer
orders are subject to the same rebate schedule, and access to the
Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. In
addition, the Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because, while only Priority Customer order flow qualifies for the
Program, an increase in Priority Customer order flow will bring greater
volume and liquidity, which benefit all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. Similarly,
offering increasing credits for executing higher percentages of total
national customer volume (increased credit rates at increased volume
tiers) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because such
increased rates and tiers encourage Members to direct increased amounts
of Priority Customer contracts to the Exchange. Market participants
want to trade with Priority Customer order flow. To the extent Priority
Customer order flow is increased by the proposal, market participants
will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange
including sending more orders and providing narrower and larger sized
quotations in the effort to trade with such Priority Customer order
flow. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit those
Members who receive the lower tier levels, or do not qualify for the
Program at all, by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads.
    Limiting the Program to multiply-listed options classes listed on
MIAX is reasonable because those parties trading heavily in multiply-
listed classes will receive a credit for such trading, and is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange does not trade any
singly-listed products at this time. If at such time the Exchange
develops proprietary products, the Exchange anticipates having to
devote a lot of resources to develop them, and therefore would need to
retain funds collected in order to recoup those expenditures.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposed change would increase both intermarket and intramarket
competition by incenting Members to direct their Priority Customer
orders to the Exchange, which will enhance the quality of quoting and
increase the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that there
is additional competitive burden on non-Priority Customers, the
Exchange believes that this is appropriate because the rebate program
should incent Members to direct additional order flow to the Exchange
and thus provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its
markets and increases the volume of contracts traded here. To the
extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market
participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity.
Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume that results
from the anticipated increase in order flow directed to the Exchange
will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such
an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects
this competitive environment because it reduces the Exchange's fees in
a manner that encourages market participants to direct their customer
order flow, to provide liquidity, and to attract additional transaction
volume to the Exchange. Given the robust competition for volume among
options markets, many of which offer the same products, implementing a
volume based customer rebate program to attract order flow like the one
being proposed in this filing is consistent with the above-mentioned
goals of the Act. This is especially true for the smaller options
markets, such as MIAX, which is competing for volume with much larger
exchanges that dominate the options trading industry.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\12\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission

summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2015-27 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-27. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-27,
and should be submitted on or May 14, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09426 Filed 4-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 5, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25633]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 352

[Docket No. AD12-6-001]

Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules

AGENCY:  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION:  Notice of staff memorandum.

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

SUMMARY:  In this document, the Commission is seeking public comment on
whether the existing regulations concerning the Uniform Systems of
Accounts prescribed for oil pipeline companies and hydropower prefiling
requirements, and a requirement imposed in 2001 that Western public and
non-public utilities offer available real-time electric energy capacity
into the markets and post the availability on their Web sites and the
WSPP Web site, warrant a formal public review.

DATES:  Comments are due by May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES:  Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways:
     Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents
created electronically using word processing software should be filed
in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned
format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically
may mail or hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment
Procedures Section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Christy Walsh, Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Take notice that the Commission staff is
issuing a memorandum seeking public comment on whether the existing
regulations concerning the Uniform Systems of Accounts prescribed for
oil pipeline companies and hydropower prefiling requirements, and a
requirement imposed in 2001 that Western public and non-public
utilities offer available real-time electric energy capacity into the
markets and post the availability on their Web sites and the WSPP Web
site, warrant a formal public review. The memorandum is being issued
pursuant to the November 8, 2011 Plan for Retrospective Analysis of
Existing Rules prepared in response to Executive Order 13579, which
requested independent regulatory agencies issue plans for periodic
retrospective analysis of their existing regulations.
    The Staff Memorandum is being placed in the record in the above-
referenced administrative docket. The Staff Memorandum will also be
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov.
    Comments on the Staff Memorandum should be filed within 30 days of
the issuance of this document. The Commission encourages electronic
submission of comments in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original of the comment to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    All filings in this docket are accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket. For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Questions regarding this document should be directed to: Christy
Walsh, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued: April 23, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10310 Filed 5-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 71606]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28605]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0437; FRL 9903-41-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Emission Control System Performance Warranty
Regulations and Voluntary Aftermarket Part Certification Program
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Emission Control System
Performance Warranty Regulations and Voluntary Aftermarket Part
Certification Program (Renewal), to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through January 31, 2014. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 36776) on June, 19
2013 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
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.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 30,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0437 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Sohacki, Compliance Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number:
734-214-4851; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA ICR Number: 0116.10.
    OMB Control Number: 2060-0060.
    Abstract: Under Section 206(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7521), on-highway engine and vehicle manufacturers may not legally
introduce their products into US commerce unless EPA has certified that
their production complies with applicable emission standards. Per
section 207(a), original vehicle manufacturers must warrant that
vehicles are free from defects in materials and workmanship that would
cause the vehicle not to comply with emission regulations during its
useful life. Section 207(a) directs EPA to provide certification to
those manufacturers or builders of automotive aftermarket parts that
demonstrate that the installation and use of their products will not
cause failure of the engine or vehicle to comply with emission
standards. An aftermarket part is any part offered for sale for
installation in or on a motor vehicle after such vehicle has left the
vehicle manufacturer's production line (40 CFR 85.2113(b)).
Participation in the aftermarket certification program is voluntary.
Aftermarket part manufacturers or builders (manufacturers) electing to
participate conduct emission and durability testing as described in 40
CFR part 85, subpart V, and submit data about their products and
testing procedures. Any information submitted to the Agency for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to policies
set forth in CFR title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2).
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers or builders of
automotive aftermarket parts. Respondent's obligation to respond:
Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 547 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $19,063 (per year), which includes $1,955
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-28605 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P