[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 165 (Monday, August 30, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48357-48363]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18516]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2021-0353; FRL-8916-01-R1]

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate
Transport Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. The
State of Connecticut made a submission to the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to address these requirements for the 2015 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is proposing to approve the
submission as meeting the requirement that each SIP contain adequate
provisions to prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 29,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2021-0353 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be

accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI
or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912, telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Connecticut Submittal
III. EPA Evaluation of Connecticut's Submittal
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone NAAQS
(2015 ozone NAAQS), lowering the level of both the primary and
secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of these
applicable requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
otherwise known as the good neighbor provision, which generally
requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on
other states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are two
so-called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for a
new or revised NAAQS must contain adequate provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions activity within the state from
emitting air pollutants in amounts that will significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1), or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). EPA and
states must give independent significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when
evaluating downwind air quality problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 0.070 ppm is
equivalent to 70 ppb.
    \2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under
section 110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
    \3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-911 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that EPA has addressed the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior
ozone NAAQS in several regional regulatory actions, including the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter standards,\4\ the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule Update (CSAPR Update), and, most recently, the Revised
CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \5\ In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must come into compliance
with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 181(a). Wisconsin
v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
    \6\ The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS, 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021), was signed by the
EPA Administrator on March 15, 2021, and responded to the remand of
the CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016), and the vacatur of
a separate rule, the CSAPR Close-Out, 83 FR 65878 (December 21,
2018), by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (D.C.
Cir. 2019); New York v. EPA, 781 F. App'x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the development and implementation of CSAPR and other
regional rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor provision,\7\ EPA,
working in partnership with states, developed the following four-step
interstate transport framework to address the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1) Identify downwind air
quality problems; (2) identify upwind states that impact those downwind
air quality problems sufficiently such that they are considered
``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and analysis; (3)
identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any), applying a multi-
factor analysis, to prevent linked upwind states identified in step 2
from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air quality
problems; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures needed to
achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other regional
rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the NOX
SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has released several documents containing information relevant
to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, EPA published a notice of data
availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design values (DVs) for 2023 using a 2011
base year platform, on which we requested public comment.\8\ In the
NODA, EPA used the year 2023 as the analytic year for this preliminary
modeling because that year aligns with the expected attainment year for
Moderate ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\9\ On
October 27, 2017, we released a memorandum (2017 memo) containing
updated modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in
response to comments on the NODA, and noted that the modeling may be
useful for states developing SIPs to address good neighbor obligations
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\10\ On March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum
(March 2018 memo) noting that the same 2023 modeling data released in
the 2017 memo could also be useful for identifying potential downwind
air quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS at step 1 of
the

four-step interstate transport framework. The March 2018 memo also
included the then newly available contribution modeling results to
assist states in evaluating their impact on potential downwind air
quality problems for the 2015 ozone NAAQS under step 2 of the
interstate transport framework. EPA subsequently issued two more
memoranda in August and October 2018, providing additional information
to states developing good neighbor SIP submissions for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS concerning, respectively, potential contribution thresholds that
may be appropriate to apply in step 2 of the framework, and
considerations for identifying downwind areas that may have problems
maintaining the standard at step 1 of the framework.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR
1733 (January 6, 2017).
    \9\ 82 FR 1733, 1735 (January 6, 2017).
    \10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
    \11\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (``August 2018 memo''), and
Considerations for Identifying Maintenance Receptors for Use in
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018, available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 30, 2020, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
Revised CSAPR Update, EPA released and accepted public comment on
updated 2023 modeling that used a 2016 emissions platform developed
under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state
collaborative project as the primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.\12\ On March 15, 2021, EPA signed the final
Revised CSAPR Update using the same modeling released at proposal.\13\
Although Connecticut relied on the modeling included in the March 2018
memo to develop its SIP submission as EPA had suggested, EPA now
proposes to primarily rely on the updated and newly available 2016 base
year modeling in evaluating these submissions. By using the updated
modeling results, EPA is using the most current and technically
appropriate information as the primary basis for this proposed
rulemaking. EPA's independent analysis, which also evaluated historical
monitoring data, recent DVs, and emissions trends, found that such
information provides additional support and further substantiates the
results of the 2016 base year modeling as the basis for this proposed
rulemaking. Section III of this document and the Air Quality Modeling
technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this
proposal contain additional detail on this modeling.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The results of this modeling are
included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this action. The
underlying modeling files are available for public review in the
docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272).
    \13\ See 86 FR 23054 at 23075, 23164 (April 30, 2021).
    \14\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' 86 FR 23054
(April 30, 2021), available in the docket for this action. This TSD
was originally developed to support EPA's action in the Revised
CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding good neighbor obligations
under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. While developed in this separate
context, the data and modeling outputs, including interpolated
design values for 2021, may be evaluated with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS and used in support of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CSAPR, CSAPR Update, and the Revised CSAPR Update, EPA used
a threshold of one percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a given
upwind state was ``linked'' at step 2 of the interstate transport
framework and would, therefore, contribute to downwind nonattainment
and maintenance sites identified in step 1. If a state's impact did not
equal or exceed the one percent threshold, the upwind state was not
``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, and EPA, therefore,
concluded the state would not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the downwind states.
However, if a state's impact equaled or exceeded the one percent
threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated in step 3,
considering both air quality and cost considerations, to determine
what, if any, emissions might be deemed ``significant'' and, thus, must
be eliminated under the good neighbor provision. EPA is proposing to
rely on the one percent threshold (which is 0.70 ppb) for the purpose
of evaluating Connecticut's contribution to nonattainment or
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind areas.
    Several D.C. Circuit court decisions address the issue of the
relevant analytic year for the purposes of evaluating ozone transport
air-quality problems. On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit issued a
decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, remanding the CSAPR Update to the extent
that it failed to require upwind states to eliminate their significant
contribution by the next applicable attainment date by which downwind
states must come into compliance with the NAAQS, as established under
CAA section 181(a). 938 F.3d 303, 313.
    On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Maryland v.
EPA that cited the Wisconsin decision in holding that EPA must assess
the impact of interstate transport on air quality at the next downwind
attainment date, including Marginal area attainment dates, in
evaluating the basis for EPA's denial of a petition under CAA section
126(b). Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1203-04 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The
court noted that ``section 126(b) incorporates the Good Neighbor
Provision,'' and, therefore, ``EPA must find a violation [of section
126] if an upwind source will significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment at the next downwind attainment deadline. Therefore, the
agency must evaluate downwind air quality at that deadline, not at some
later date.'' Id. at 1204 (emphasis added). EPA interprets the court's
holding in Maryland as requiring the Agency, under the good neighbor
provision, to assess downwind air quality by the next applicable
attainment date, including a Marginal area attainment date under CAA
section 181 for ozone nonattainment.\15\ The Marginal area attainment
date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021.\16\ Historically, EPA
has considered the full ozone season prior to the attainment date as
supplying an appropriate analytic year for assessing good neighbor
obligations. While this would be 2020 for an August 2021 attainment
date (which falls within the 2021 ozone season running from May 1 to
September 30), in this circumstance, when the 2020 ozone season is
wholly in the past, it is appropriate to focus on 2021 to address good
neighbor obligations to the extent possible by the 2021 attainment
date. EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to select an
analytical year that is wholly in the past, because the agency
interprets the good neighbor provision as forward looking. See 86 FR
23054 at 23074; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322. Consequently, in
this proposal EPA will use the analytical year of 2021 to evaluate
Connecticut's good neighbor

obligation with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ We note that the court in Maryland did not have occasion to
evaluate circumstances in which EPA may determine that an upwind
linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and 2 of
the interstate transport framework by a particular attainment date,
but for reasons of impossibility or profound uncertainty the Agency
is unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by that date. See
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C. Circuit noted in Wisconsin that
upon a sufficient showing, these circumstances may warrant
flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the good neighbor
provision. Such circumstances are not at issue in the present
proposal.
    \16\ CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; Additional Air Quality
Designations for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018, effective Aug. 3, 2018).
    \17\ EPA recognizes that by the time final action is taken with
respect to this SIP submission, the 2021 ozone season will be wholly
in the past. As discussed below, the available modeling information
indicates that our analysis would not change even using 2023 as the
analytic year. The 2023 modeling results are included in the ``Ozone
Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx'',
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Connecticut Submittal

    On December 6, 2018, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision
addressing the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Connecticut relied on the
results of EPA's modeling for the 2015 ozone NAAQS contained in the
March 2018 memo to identify downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors that may be impacted by emissions from sources in Connecticut
in the year 2023. These results indicate Connecticut's greatest impact
on any potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor would
be 0.83 ppb in Suffolk County, New York.\18\ Based on the March 2018
memo, this was the only nonattainment or maintenance receptor for which
Connecticut was projected in 2023 to contribute above the screening
threshold of 0.70 ppb (one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA notes that the monitoring site ID for Suffolk County,
New York is 361030002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Connecticut noted in its December 2018 good neighbor submittal that
``EPA had considered cost-effective only reductions that are available
at a cost of less than $1,400 per ton of emissions reduced.
Connecticut's emitters are currently required to adopt control measures
at costs exceeding $13,000 per ton (of NOX).'' \19\
Connecticut states that as it requires this high level of control of
ozone precursor emissions, it has exhausted lower-cost emission
reduction measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ EPA notes that the $1,400 ton per year threshold stated by
Connecticut is in reference to the cost per ton threshold used in
the CSAPR Update, which was used to evaluate available cost-
effective EGU controls under the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 0.075 ppm. See
81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As evidence of this, Connecticut points to Regulations of
Connecticut Agencies section 22a-174-22e(g) and its ozone attainment
plan technical support document for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which was
submitted to EPA in August 2017 and documents the State's ozone
precursor emission reduction measures.
    Connecticut concludes that it has met its good neighbor obligations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because of the existing control measures that
are in place.

III. EPA Evaluation of Connecticut's Submittal

    Connecticut's SIP submission relies on analysis of the year 2023 to
show whether it contributes to nonattainment or interferes with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.\20\ As
explained in Section I of this proposal, EPA has conducted an updated
analysis for the 2021 analytical year that is being used to evaluate
Connecticut's transport SIP submittal. Significantly, this new analysis
shows that, in 2021, Connecticut is not projected to contribute to any
potential downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptor, including the
monitor in Suffolk County, New York, above the screening threshold of
0.70 ppb (one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS). While EPA has focused
its analysis in this document on the year 2021, modeling data in the
record for years 2023 and 2028 confirm that no new linkages to downwind
receptors are projected for Connecticut in later years. This is not
surprising as it is consistent with an overall, long-term downward
trend in emissions from this state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ We recognize that Connecticut and other states may have
been influenced by EPA's 2018 guidance memos (issued prior to the
Wisconsin and Maryland decisions) in making good neighbor
submissions that relied on EPA's modeling of 2023. When there are
intervening changes in relevant law or legal interpretation of CAA
requirements, states are generally free to withdraw, supplement,
and/or re-submit their SIP submissions with new analysis (in
compliance with CAA procedures for SIP submissions). While
Connecticut has not done this, as explained in this section, the
independent analysis EPA has conducted at its discretion confirms
that the state's submission in this instance is ultimately
approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in Section I of this document, in consideration of the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, EPA's analysis relies on 2021 as
the relevant attainment year for evaluating Connecticut's good neighbor
obligations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS using the four-step
interstate transport framework. In step 1, we identify locations where
the Agency expects there to be nonattainment or maintenance receptors
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2021 analytic year. Where EPA's
analysis shows that an area or site does not fall under the definition
of a nonattainment or maintenance receptor, that site is excluded from
further analysis under EPA's four step interstate transport framework.
For areas that are identified as a nonattainment or maintenance
receptor in 2021, we proceed to the next step of our four-step
framework by identifying the upwind state's contribution to those
receptors.
    EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and maintenance
receptors in this action is consistent with the approach used in
previous transport rulemakings. EPA's approach gives independent
consideration to both the ``contribute significantly to nonattainment''
and the ``interfere with maintenance'' prongs of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the D.C. Circuit's direction in
North Carolina v. EPA.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 910-11 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (holding that EPA must give ``independent significance'' to
each prong of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the purpose of this proposal, EPA identifies nonattainment
receptors as those monitoring sites that are projected to have average
design values that exceed the NAAQS and that are also measuring
nonattainment based on the most recent monitored design values. This
approach is consistent with prior transport rulemakings, such as CSAPR
Update, where EPA defined nonattainment receptors as those areas that
both currently monitor nonattainment and that EPA projects will be in
nonattainment in the future analytic year.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). Revised CSAPR Update
also used this approach. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). This same
concept, relying on both current monitoring data and modeling to
define nonattainment receptor, was also applied in CAIR. See 70 FR
25241 (January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 913-
14 (affirming as reasonable EPA's approach to defining nonattainment
in CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, in this proposal, EPA identifies a receptor to be a
``maintenance'' receptor for purposes of defining interference with
maintenance, consistent with the method used in the CSAPR and upheld by
the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d
118, 136 (D.C. Cir. 2015).\23\ Specifically, monitoring sites with a
projected maximum design value in 2021 that exceeds the NAAQS are
considered maintenance receptors. EPA's method of defining these
receptors takes into account both measured data and reasonable
projections based on modeling analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). CSAPR Update and Revised
CSAPR Update also used this approach. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26,
2016) and 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that nonattainment receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only'' to
refer to receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the methodology described above, monitoring sites with
a projected maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, but with a
projected average design value that is below the NAAQS,

are identified as maintenance-only receptors. In addition, those sites
that are currently measuring ozone concentrations below the level of
the applicable NAAQS but are projected to be nonattainment based on the
average design value and that, by definition, are projected to have a
maximum design value above the standard are also identified as
maintenance-only receptors.
    To evaluate future air quality in steps 1 and 2 of the interstate
transport framework, EPA is using the 2016 and 2023 base case emissions
developed under the EPA/MJO/state collaborative emissions modeling
platform project as the primary source for base year and 2023 future
year emissions data for this proposal.\24\ Because this platform does
not include emissions for 2021, EPA developed an interpolation
technique based on modeling for 2023 and measured ozone data to
determine ozone concentrations for 2021. To estimate average and
maximum design values for 2021, EPA first performed air quality
modeling for 2016 and 2023 to obtain design values in 2023. The 2023
design values were then coupled with the corresponding 2016 measured
design values to estimate design values in 2021. Details on the
modeling, including the interpolation methodology, can be found in the
Air Quality Modeling TSD, found in the docket for this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021). The results of this
modeling are included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this
action. The underlying modeling files are available for public
access in the docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-
0272).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To quantify the contribution of emissions from specific upwind
states on 2021 8-hour design values for the identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors, EPA first performed
nationwide, state-level ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023.
The source apportionment modeling provided contributions to ozone from
precursor emissions of anthropogenic nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in each state, individually. The
modeled contributions were then applied in a relative sense to the 2021
average design value to estimate the contributions in 2021 from each
state to each receptor. Details on the source apportionment modeling
and the methods for determining contributions in 2021 are in the Air
Quality Modeling TSD in the docket.
    The 2021 design values and contributions were examined to determine
if Connecticut contributes at or above the threshold of one percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb) to any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor. The data \25\ indicate that the highest
contribution in 2021 from Connecticut to a downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor is 0.44 ppb to a nonattainment receptor in
Richmond County, New York (monitoring site 360850067). The data also
show modeled ozone contributions from Connecticut to the design values
of a larger set of monitoring sites (independent of attainment status)
and indicate that the highest projected contribution in 2021 from
Connecticut to any of these sites is 3.51 ppb to Kent County in Rhode
Island (monitoring site 440030002; #378 on the Design Values and
Contributions spreadsheet). While Connecticut's modeled contribution to
the Kent County monitor exceeds one percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
EPA's analysis at step 1 does not identify the Kent County monitor as a
downwind area that may have problems maintaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The Kent County monitor's projected average design value in 2021 is
65.5 ppb. The updated modeling for 2021 also shows that Connecticut is
no longer projected to be linked to the Suffolk County monitoring site,
since this monitor is no longer projected to be a nonattainment or
maintenance receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The data are given in the ``Air Quality Modeling Technical
Support Document for the Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
Update'' and ``Ozone Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR
Update.xlsx,'' which are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also analyzed ozone precursor emissions trends in Connecticut
to support the findings from the air quality analysis. In evaluating
emissions trends, we first reviewed the information submitted by the
state and then reviewed additional information available to the Agency.
We focused on state-wide emissions of NOX and VOCs.\26\
Emissions from mobile sources, electric generating units (``EGUs''),
industrial facilities, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents are some
of the major anthropogenic sources of ozone precursors. This evaluation
looks at both past emissions trends, as well as projected trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ This is because ground-level ozone is not emitted directly
into the air but is formed by chemical reactions between ozone
precursors, chiefly NOX and VOCs, in the presence of
sunlight. See 86 FR 23054, 23063.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 1, for Connecticut, annual total NOX
and VOC emissions are projected to decline between 2016 and 2023 by 31
percent and 2 percent, respectively. The projected reductions are a
result of the implementation of existing control programs that will
continue to decrease NOX and VOC emissions in Connecticut,
as indicated by EPA's most recent 2021 and 2023 projected emissions.
    As shown in Table 2, on-road and nonroad mobile source emissions
collectively comprise a large portion of Connecticut's total
anthropogenic NOX and VOCs. For example, in 2019,
NOX emissions from mobile sources in Connecticut comprised
62 percent of total NOX emissions and 38 percent of total
VOC emissions.
    The large decrease in NOX emissions between 2016
emissions and projected 2023 emissions in Connecticut is primarily
driven by reductions in emissions from on-road and nonroad mobile
sources. EPA projects that both VOC and NOX emissions will
continue declining to 2023 as newer vehicles and engines that are
subject to the most recent, stringent mobile source standards replace
older vehicles and engines.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards (79 FR
23414, April 28, 2014); Mobile Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (72 FR
8428, February 26, 2007), Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards
and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements (66 FR 5002,
January 18, 2001); Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule (69 FR 38957, June
29, 2004); Locomotive and Marine Rule (73 FR 25098, May 6, 2008);
Marine Spark-Ignition and Small Spark-Ignition Engine Rule (73 FR
59034, October 8, 2008); New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at
or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder Rule (75 FR 22895, April 30, 2010);
and Aircraft and Aircraft Engine Emissions Standards (77 FR 36342,
June 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, based on the projected downward trend in projected
future emissions trends, in combination with the historical decline in
actual emissions, there is no evidence to suggest that the overall
emissions trend demonstrated in Table 2 would suddenly reverse or spike
in 2021 compared to historical emissions levels or those projected for
2023. Further, there is no evidence that the projected ozone precursor
emissions trends beyond 2021 would not continue to show a decline in
emissions. In addition, EPA followed its normal practice of including
in our modeling only changes in NOX or VOC emissions that
result from final regulatory actions. Any potential changes in
NOX or VOC emissions that may result from possible future or
proposed regulatory actions are speculative.
    This downward trend in emissions in Connecticut adds support to the
air quality analyses presented above for the state and indicates that
the contributions from emissions from sources in Connecticut to ozone
receptors in downwind states will

continue to decline and remain below one percent of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The annual emissions data for the years 2011 through 2019
were obtained from EPA's National Emissions Inventory website:
https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data. Note that emissions from miscellaneous
sources are not included in the state totals. The emissions for 2021
and 2023 are based on the 2016 emissions modeling platform. See
``2005 thru 2019 + 2021_2023_2028 Annual State Tier 1 Emissions_v3''
and the Emissions Modeling TSD in the docket for this action.

                                   Table 1--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOCs From Anthropogenic Sources in Connecticut
                                                                   [Tons per year] 28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Projected    Projected
                                        2011      2012      2013      2014      2015      2016      2017      2018      2019        2021         2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT NOX..............................    72,815    69,540    66,264    62,989    57,791    48,729    46,285    43,751    40,219       35,033       33,412
CT VOCs.............................    79,806    80,621    81,435    82,250    74,313    62,658    57,777    56,137    54,498       63,354       61,110
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Table 2--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOCs From On-Road and Nonroad Vehicles in Connecticut
                                                                     [Tons per year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Projected    Projected
                                        2011      2012      2013      2014      2015      2016      2017      2018      2019        2021         2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT NOX..............................    54,371    50,956    47,540    44,124    40,040    32,090    30,760    27,878    24,995       19,128       16,935
CT VOCs.............................    38,749    37,166    35,583    33,999    30,837    23,957    23,851    22,212    20,573       17,398       16,229
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, EPA's air quality and emissions analyses indicate that
emissions from Connecticut will not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state in 2021.

IV. Proposed Action

    As discussed in Section II, Connecticut concluded that it has met
its good neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on
existing control measures that are in place. EPA conducted an
independent analysis for the analytic year 2021 based on more recent
data and updated modeling. EPA's evaluation of measured and monitored
data, including interpolating values to generate a reasonable
expectation of air quality and contribution values in 2021, is
discussed in Section III. Based on the updated modeling and analysis,
EPA concluded that emissions from sources in the state will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state. This conclusion remains
true for later modeled years 2023 and 2028 in the updated modeling EPA
is relying on. Therefore, we propose to approve the Connecticut
submission as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    EPA is soliciting public comments on this document. These comments
will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may
participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written
comments to this proposed rule by following the instructions listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register document.

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 proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 24, 2021.
Deborah Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2021-18516 Filed 8-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66909-66910]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26655]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-12-000]

Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC; Sabine Pass LNG, L.P.; Notice of
Application to Amend Authorization Under Section 3 of the Natural Gas
Act

    Take notice that on October 25, 2013 Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC
and Sabine Pass LNG, L.P. (collectively, Sabine Pass), 700 Milam
Street, Suite 800, Houston, Texas 77002, filed in Docket No. CP14-12-
000, an application, pursuant to section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's Regulations, to amend the
authorizations granted on April 16, 2012 in Docket No. CP11-72-000
(Liquefaction Project), as amended in Docket No. CP13-2 on August 2,
2013, in order to increase the total LNG production capacity of the
Liquefaction Project from the currently authorized 2.2 Bcf per day (803
Bcf per year) to 2.76 Bcf per day (1,006 Bcf per year). Sabine Pass'
requested increase in authorized capacity is an increase from the
current, conservatively estimated nominal capacity to a peak or maximum
capacity at ideal operating conditions. No new facilities are proposed,
all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Patricia Outtrim, Vice President, Governmental and Regulatory Affairs,
Cheniere Energy, Inc., 700 Milam Street, Suite 800, Houston, Texas
77002, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Or
contact Lisa M. Tonery, Partner, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, 666 Fifth
Avenue, New York, NY 10103, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) 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 EA for
this proposal. The filing of the 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.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit an original and 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and
must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the
proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 14, 2013.

    Dated: October 31, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-26655 Filed 11-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 27944]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12710]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Associate
Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) Customer
Service Survey

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew a previously approved
information collection. The FAA Office of the Associate Administrator
for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) conducts this survey in order
to obtain industry input on customer service standards which have been
developed and distributed to industry customers.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ronda
Thompson, Federal Aviation Administration, ASP-110, 800 Independence
Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronda Thompson by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0611.
    Title: Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
(AST) Customer Service Survey.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: This information is being collected to obtain feedback
from the companies and organizations that utilize the products and
services of the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Commercial
Space Transportation (AST). The data collected will be analyzed by AST
to determine the quality of services provided by AST to its industry
and government customers, and to address any problems or issues found
as a result of the data analysis.
    Respondents: Approximately 50 industry customers.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 50 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 5, 2017.
Ronda L. Thompson,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Performance, Policy, and
Records Management Branch, ASP-110.
[FR Doc. 2017-12710 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37196-37197]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15289]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0475]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Isleton, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Isleton Drawbridge across
Sacramento River, mile 18.7, at Isleton, CA. The deviation is necessary
to allow the bridge owner to make critical repairs to the bridge deck.
This deviation allows the bridge to open with 15 minutes advance notice
during the deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. on June 27, 2014, until
5 a.m. on June 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0475], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) has requested a temporary change to the operation of the
Isleton Drawbridge, mile 18.7, over Sacramento River, at Isleton, CA.
The drawbridge

navigation span provides 15 feet vertical clearance above Mean High
Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on signal
from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from November
1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other times the draw
shall open on signal if at least four hours notice is given to the
drawtender at the Rio Vista bridge across the Sacramento River, mile
12.8, as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is
commercial and recreational.
    During the deviation period, either leaf of the double bascule
drawspan will require 15 minutes to raise it to the fully open
position. The other leaf will be secured open. This temporary deviation
has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the
proposed temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies upon
15 minutes advance notice and there is no immediate alternate route for
vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the
waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the
change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange
their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary
deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 17, 2014.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-15289 Filed 6-27-14; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30298-30299]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11525]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1276-006; ER10-1292-005; ER10-1287-005; ER10-
1303-005; ER10-1319-007; ER10-1353-007.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company, CMS Energy Resource
Management Company, Grayling Generation Station Limited Partnership,
Genesee Power Station Limited Partnership, CMS Generation Michigan
Power, LLC, Dearborn Industrial Generation, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Consumer
Energy Company, et. al.
    Filed Date: 5/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160502-5474.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1285-007.

    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Craven
County Wood Energy Limited Partnership.
    Filed Date: 5/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160502-5476.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1616-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Orcas NITSA S.A. No 792 and
Orcas NOA S.A No 793 to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160503-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1617-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA
No. 3445, Queue No. X1-073 due to Breach to be effective 5/3/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/3/16.
    Accession Number: 20160503-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1618-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2953 Cottonwood Wind
Project, LLC GIA Cancellation to be effective 4/13/2016.
    Filed Date: 5/4/16.
    Accession Number: 20160504-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/25/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1619-000.
    Applicants: Maine Power Express, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authority to sell transmission rights
at negotiated rates of Maine Power Express, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/2/16.
    Accession Number: 20160502-5464.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/16.

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

    Dated: May 4, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11525 Filed 5-13-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11718-11720]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04510]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Adex Media, Inc. et al.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

March 2, 2015.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
each of the issuers detailed below because questions have arisen as to
their operating status, if any. Each of the issuers below is quoted on
OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. OTC Markets Group, Inc.,
however, has been unable to contact each of these issuers for more than
one year. In addition, the staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission has independently endeavored to determine whether any of the
issuers below are operating. Each of the issuers below either confirmed
that they were no longer operating or were now private companies,
failed to respond to the Commission's inquiry about their operating
status, did not have an operational address, or failed to provide their
registered agent with an operational address. The staff of the
Securities and Exchange Commission also determined that none of the
issuers below has filed any information with OTC Markets Group, Inc. or
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the past year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Information
                                                             regarding
              Issuer                       Ticker            operating
                                                             status *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Adex Media, Inc...............  ADXM.................               2
2. AdStar, Inc...................  ADST.................               1
3. Alternative Green               AGTI.................               1
 Technologies, Inc.
4. American City Bank (Los         ACBK.................               1
 Angeles, CA).
5. American Mold Guard, Inc......  AMGI.................               1
6. American Uranium Corp.........  ACUC.................               1
7. Americana Distribution, Inc...  ADBN.................               1
8. Atlantis Technology Group.....  ATNP.................               1
9. Azure Dynamics Corp...........  AZDDQ................               1
10. Bald Eagle Energy, Inc.......  BEEI.................               1
11. Betawave Corp................  BWAV.................               1
12. Beverly Hills Bancorp, Inc...  BHBCQ................               2
13. Blue Holdings, Inc...........  BLHI.................               1
14. California-Michigan Land &     CMLW.................               2
 Water Co.
15. Cannon Exploration, Inc......  CNEX.................               1
16. Carlton Companies, Inc (The).  CTNO.................               1
17. China Daqing M&H Petroleum,    CHDP.................               1
 Inc.
18. China Gateway Corp...........  CGWY.................               1
19. China M161 Network Co........  CMNW.................               1
20. ClearPoint Business            CPBRQ................               1
 Resources, Inc.
21. Collexis Holdings, Inc.......  CLXS.................               1
22. Colonial Capital Trust IV....  CBCPQ................               1
23. CommercePlanet, Inc..........  CPLT.................               1
24. Commodore Applied              CXIA.................               2
 Technologies, Inc.
25. Composite Power Corp.........  CPWW.................               1
26. Consolidated Plen Tech         CSPT.................               1
 Electronics, Inc.
27. Consumer Products Services     CPSV.................               1
 Group, Inc.
28. Corprate Data Sciences, Inc..  CODS.................               1
29. Corprate Management            YDGE.................               1
 Solutions, Inc.
30. Data Evolution Holdings, Inc.  DTEV.................               1
31. Degama Software Solutions,     DGMA.................               1
 Inc.
32. EarthFirst Technologies, Inc.  EFTI.................               2
33. ebank Financial Services, Inc  EBDC.................               2
34. Ecuity, Inc..................  ECUI.................               1
35. EM International Enterprises   EMIE.................               1
 Corp.

36. EYI Industries, Inc..........  EYII.................               1
37. Factory 2-U Stores, Inc......  FTUSQ................               1
38. Fashion House Holdings, Inc    FHHIQ................               1
 (The).
39. Fidelis Energy, Inc..........  FDEI.................               1
40. First Vietnamese American      FVAB.................               2
 Bank (Westminster CA).
41. Firstar Exploration Corp.....  FSRX.................               1
42. Fusion Networks Holdings, Inc  FUSN.................               1
43. Genius Products, Inc.........  GNPR.................               1
44. Global Innovation Corp.......  GLBN.................               1
45. Green Bridge Industries, Inc.  GRBG.................               1
46. GREM USA.....................  GREM.................               1
47. Grifco International, Inc....  GFCI.................               1
48. Hansheng Industrial Equipment  HEQM.................               1
 Manufacturing (USA), Inc.
49. Harvey Electronics, Inc......  HRVEQ................               1
50. HIMC Corp....................  HMCO.................               1
51. Immunosyn Corp...............  IMYN.................               1
52. Imusic Worldwide, Ltd........  IMWL.................               1
53. Indie Ranch Media, Inc.......  INDR.................               1
54. Industrial Enterprises of      IEAM.................               1
 America, Inc.
55. InNexus Biotechnology Inc....  IXSBF................               1
56. Innovative Card Technologies,  INVC.................               1
 Inc.
57. Insight ID, Inc..............  INII.................               1
58. Intelligentias, Inc..........  ITLI.................               1
59. International Gold Resources,  IGRU.................               1
 Inc.
60. IR Biosciences Holdings, Inc.  IRBS.................               1
61. KBK Capital Trust I..........  KBKCP................               1
62. Lateral Media, Inc...........  LTLM.................               1
63. Manaris (2010) Corp..........  AVNY.................               1
64. Map Financial Group Inc......  MAPF.................               1
65. Marketing Concepts             MCCI.................               1
 International.
66. Marmion Industries Corp......  MMIO.................               1
67. Medwave, Inc.................  MDWV.................               1
68. Metro One Development, Inc...  MTRO.................               1
69. Migami, Inc..................  MIGA.................               1
70. Modern Technology Corp.......  MODC.................               1
71. MotivNation, Inc.............  MOVT.................               1
72. MyWeb Inccom.................  MWEB.................               1
73. New World Brands, Inc........  NWBD.................               1
74. NexPrise, Inc................  NXPS.................               1
75. Odd Job Stores, Inc..........  ODDJ.................               1
76. Oh Boy Industries, Inc.......  OHBO.................               1
77. Ovale Group, Inc.............  OVLG.................               1
78. Oyco, Inc....................  OYCO.................               1
79. Pacer Health Corp............  PHLH.................               1
80. Pacific CMA, Inc.............  PACC.................               1
81. Passport Brands, Inc.........  PBIX.................               1
82. PERF Go-Green Holdings, Inc..  PGOG.................               1
83. PetroQuest Resources, Inc....  PQRJ.................               1
84. PinkMonkey.com, Inc..........  PMKY.................               2
85. PlasmaTech, Inc..............  PMAH.................               1
86. Plateau Mineral Development,   PMDP.................               1
 Inc.
87. Polar Wireless Corp..........  BCDI.................               1
88. Pope & Talbot, Inc...........  PTBTQ................               1
89. Powerlinx, Inc...............  PWNX.................               1
90. Previsto International         HLOI.................               1
 Holdings, Inc.
91. Proxim Corp..................  PROXQ................               2
92. Pure Transit Technologies,     PTTL.................               1
 Inc.
93. Pyrocap International Corp...  PYOC.................               1
94. Quality One Wireless, Inc....  QOWI.................               2
95. Quri Resources, Inc..........  QURS.................               1
96. Raven Gold Corp..............  RVNG.................               1
97. RCC Holdings Corp............  RCCH.................               1
98. Resource Recovery              RRIC.................               1
 International Corp.
99. Rockwood National Corp.......  RNTL.................               1
100. Royalite Petroleum Co., Inc.  RYPE.................               1
101. Securac Corp................  SECU.................               1
102. Secure Path Technology        SPHT.................               1
 Holdings, Inc.
103. Signature Leisure, Inc......  SGLS.................               1
104. Silicon Mountain Holdings,    SLCM.................               2
 Inc.
105. SMAN Capital Trust I........  SMANP................               1
106. Smart Move, Inc.............  SMVE.................               1

107. SNTL Litigation Trust.......  SNLLZ................               1
108. SoftNet Technology Corp.....  SOFN.................               1
109. Solutions Group, Inc........  SOLU.................               1
110. Southwest Casino Corp.......  SWCC.................               1
111. Spectre Gaming, Inc.........  SGMG.................               1
112. Spice Depot, Inc (The)......  SDEO.................               1
113. Striker Oil & Gas, Inc......  SOIS.................               1
114. Synergy Brands, Inc.........  SYBRQ................               1
115. Synovics Pharmaceuticals,     SYVC.................               1
 Inc.
116. Systech Systems               SSYT.................               1
 International, Inc.
117. TableMAX Corp...............  TBLX.................               1
118. TAG Entertainment Corp......  TAGE.................               1
119. Techlabs, Inc...............  TCHL.................               1
120. Teleplus World, Corp........  TLPEQ................               1
121. Unitech Water & Renewable     UWRE.................               1
 Energy, Inc.
122. United Bullion Exchange, Inc  UBEX.................               1
123. Upward Technology Corp......  UPRD.................               1
124. USDATA Corp.................  USDC.................               1
125. Wentworth Energy, Inc.......  WNWG.................               1
126. Winchester International      WNCH.................               1
 Resorts, Inc.
127. Worldwide E Commerce, Inc...  WEWC.................               1
128. Wyncrest Group, Inc (The)...  WNCG.................               1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Below are explanations for each of the codes used in the above table:
1 = The Securities and Exchange Commission attempted to contact the
  issuer and either the Commission did not receive a response to its
  letter, the letters were returned as undeliverable, or the registered
  agent responded that they had no forwarding address for the issuer.
2 = The Securities and Exchange Commission was able to contact the
  issuer, which informed the Commission that either the issuer was no
  longer operating or was now a private company.

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST
on March 2, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on March 13, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-04510 Filed 3-2-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P