[Federal Register: July 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 36803-36805]
[DOCID:fr24jy09-155]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60338; File No. SR-CBOE-2009-051]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change To Extend Two Pilot Programs Related to the Exchange's
Automated Improvement Mechanism

July 17, 2009.
    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 July 16, 2009, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'')

the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend two pilot programs related to the
Exchange's Automated Improvement Mechanism. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://
www.cboe.org/Legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In February, 2006, CBOE obtained approval of a filing adopting the
AIM auction process.\5\ AIM exposes certain orders electronically to an
auction process to provide such orders with the opportunity to receive
an execution at an improved price. The AIM auction is available only
for orders that an Exchange member represents as agent and for which a
second order of the same size as the ``Agency Order'' (and on the
opposite side of the market) is also submitted (effectively stopping
the Agency Order at a given price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53222 (February 3,
2006), 71 FR 7089 (February 10, 2006) approving SR-CBOE-2005-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two components of AIM were approved on a pilot basis: (1) that
there is no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the
auction, and (2) that the auction will conclude prematurely anytime
there is a quote lock on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 6.45A(d).\6\ In
connection with the pilot programs, the Exchange has submitted to the
Commission reports providing detailed AIM auction and order execution
data. In July 2006, the Exchange extended the pilot program until July
18, 2007.\7\ In July 2007, the Exchange extended the pilot program
until July 18, 2008.\8\ In July 2008, the Exchange extended the pilot
program until July 18, 2009.\9\ The proposed rule change merely extends
the duration of the pilot programs until July 17, 2010. Extending the
pilots for an additional year will allow the Commission more time to
consider the impact of the pilot programs on AIM order executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ That rule relates to situations where a Market-Maker's quote
interacts with the quote of another CBOE Market-Maker (i.e. when
internal quotes lock).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54147 (July 14,
2006), 71 FR 41487 (July 21, 2006) approving SR-CBOE-2006-64.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56094 (July 18,
2007), 72 FR 40910 (July 25, 2007) approving SR-CBOE-2007-80.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58196 (July 18,
2008), 73 FR 43803 (July 28, 2008) approving SR-CBOE-2008-76. In
this filing, the Exchange agreed to provide additional information
relating to the AIM auctions each month in order to aid the
Commission in its evaluation of the pilot program. The Exchange will
continue to provide this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act in general \10\ and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ in particular in that by allowing the Commission
additional time to evaluate the AIM pilot programs, it should serve to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78(f)(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE 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.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \12\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to provide the Commission with written notice
of its intention to file the proposed rule change along with a brief
description of the text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to filing the proposal with the Commission, or
such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has
fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, which would make the rule
change operative upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the
30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest because such waiver would allow the AIM pilot
programs to continue without interruption.\14\ Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing
with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2009-051 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2009-051. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office 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-CBOE-2009-051 and should be
submitted on or before August 14, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17638 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 41713]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13647]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA 2010-0036]

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's Request To
Amend Its Positive Train Control System

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on June 2
and 7, 2023, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA) submitted a request for amendment (RFA) to its FRA-certified
positive train control (PTC) system. FRA is publishing this notice and
inviting public comment on the railroad's RFA to its PTC system.

DATES: FRA will consider comments received by July 17, 2023. FRA may
consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable
and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary
modifications to a PTC system.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0036. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/research-development/program-areas/train-control/ptc/railroads-ptc-dockets. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov; this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-
certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTC Safety Plan
(PTCSP), a host railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an
RFA to its PTC system or PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification of a signal and train control
system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that, on June 2 and
7, 2023, SEPTA submitted an RFA to its Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement
System II, which seeks FRA's approval of a temporary outage for
construction of two new interlockings, New Arsenal and Civic, along
with the associated adjacent signal system changes on the West Chester
Line, and that RFA is available in Docket No. FRA-2010-0036.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on SEPTA 's RFA by
submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of this
railroad's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted within
the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent practicable,
without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications
to a PTC system. See 49 CFR 236.1021; see also 49 CFR 236.1011(e).
Under 49 CFR 236.1021, FRA maintains the authority to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny a railroad's RFA at FRA's sole discretion.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2023-13647 Filed 6-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78428-78429]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30604]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9920-94-OA]

Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Science Advisory
Board Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review
of EPA's Draft Trimethylbenzenes Assessment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public teleconference of the SAB
Chemical Assessment Advisory Committee Augmented for the Review of the
Draft Trimethylbenzenes Assessment (CAAC-TMB Panel) to reach consensus
on it draft peer review of EPA's draft Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes (August 2013
Revised External Review Draft).

DATES: The public teleconference will be held on Thursday, January 29,
2015. The teleconference will be held from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
(Eastern Standard Time).
    Location: The teleconference will be conducted by telephone only.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning the

teleconference may contact Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal
Officer (DFO), EPA Science Advisory Board (1400R), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460;
via telephone/voice mail<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information concerning the SAB can
be found on the SAB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA),
as amended, 5 U.S.C., App., notice is hereby given that the SAB CAAC-
TMB Panel will hold a public teleconference to reach consensus on its
draft report on the IRIS Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes
(August 2013 Revised External Review Draft) and enhancements the agency
is implementing to the IRIS program.
    The SAB was established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4365 to provide
independent scientific and technical advice to the Administrator on the
technical basis for Agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a
federal advisory committee chartered under FACA. The SAB will comply
with the provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office
procedural policies.
    The SAB CAAC-TMB Panel held a public meeting on June 17-19, 2014.
The purpose of that meeting was to receive a briefing on the EPA's
enhancements to the IRIS Program and to develop responses to the peer
review charge on the agency's draft IRIS Toxicological Review of
Trimethylbenzenes (August 2013 Revised External Review Draft). The SAB
CAAC TMB Panel held teleconferences on November 5 and 7, 2014, to
discuss and revise its draft report. The purpose of this public
teleconference is for the Panel to reach consensus on a draft report
entitled Science Advisory Board Review of the IRIS Draft (12/22/2014)
Toxicological Review of Trimethylbenzenes.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Additional background on this
SAB activity, the teleconference agenda, draft panel report, and other
materials for the teleconferences will be posted on the SAB Web site at
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/fedrgstr_activites/IRIS%20Trimethylbenzenes?OpenDocument.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA.
Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the
group conducting this SAB activity or the meeting materials. Input from
the public to the SAB will have the most impact if it consists of
comments that provide specific scientific or technical information or
analysis for the SAB to consider. Members of the public wishing to
provide comment should contact the Mr. Thomas Carpenter at the contact
information provided above.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a public teleconference will be limited to three
minutes per speaker. To be placed on the list of registered speakers
for the January 29, 2015, teleconference, interested parties should
notify Mr. Thomas Carpenter, DFO, by email no later than January 21,
2015.
    Written Statements: Written statements to be provided to the panel
for the teleconference should be provided to the DFO, preferably via
email, by January 29, 2015. It is the SAB Staff Office general policy
to post written comments on the Web page for the advisory meeting or
teleconference. Submitters are requested to provide an unsigned version
of each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish
documents with signatures on its Web sites. Members of the public
should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in
any written comments, may be posted to the SAB Web site. Copyrighted
material will not be posted without explicit permission of the
copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mr. Carpenter at the
phone number or email address noted above, preferably at least ten days
prior to the teleconference, to give the EPA as much time as possible
to process your request.

    Dated: December 18, 2014.
Thomas H. Brennan,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2014-30604 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 52521]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18728]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Application of Trans Northern Airways LLC for Commuter Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2016-8-5) Docket DOT-OST-
2016-0057.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order tentatively
finding Trans Northern Airways LLC fit, willing, and able to provide
scheduled passenger service as a commuter air carrier using small
aircraft pursuant to Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
August 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Docket DOT-OST-2016-0057 and addressed to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590,
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine J. O'Toole, Air Carrier
Fitness Division (X-56, Room W86-489), U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202)
366-9721.

    Dated: August 2, 2016.
Susan McDermott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016-18728 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 168 (Monday, August 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 52486]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1520]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for Montgomery County,
Kansas, and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations,
which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood
Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone
designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as
proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports
for Montgomery County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: This withdrawal is effective August 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1520, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 1, 2015, FEMA published a proposed
notice at 80 FR 37647, proposing flood hazard determinations for
Montgomery County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is withdrawing
the proposed notice.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Dated: August 20, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-21509 Filed 8-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


EPA Summary and Assessment of ADEQ Visibility Analysis
May 9, 2013
In the supplement submitted on May 3, 2013, ADEQ provided an additional analysis of visibility trends in Arizona based on IMPROVE monitoring data for the baseline period (2000-2004) through the 2005-2009, which ADEQ terms the "progress period". EPA reviewed the data and analyses and we agree with the presentation of the observed trends of the data. The monitoring data presented in the supplemental analysis is consistent with the data that EPA obtained from the Regional Haze Planning section of the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS) website located at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/HazePlanning.aspx.
Interannual variability in the emissions of certain aerosol components caused by natural, uncontrollable events such as wildfires or dust storms is often much larger than the expected change in the emissions of these species from anthropogenic sources. The large variability in size and occurrence of these events can obscure a trend in the species-specific contribution to visibility impairment as well. In order to provide a more complete explanation of the observed trends, ADEQ performed different types of analyses that are sensitive to these variations in different ways.
ADEQ's first analysis of the monitoring data was to compare total and species contributions to visibility impairment during the baseline period and the progress period. The TSS calculates the multi-year average for the two periods by averaging the annual average visibility for each of the five years, for the best and worst twenty percent days. This approach tends to average out the impact of large events, but still can be difficult to assess actual improvement between the two periods if a large event occurred more often in one period than the other. In order to demonstrate the effect of wildfires on the results of this analysis at GRCA1 and IKBA1, ADEQ replaced the annual average total extinction with an average value for some years with particularly large wildfires. This analysis was successful in demonstrating the influence of high impairment years on the 5-year average.
In addition to providing the results of the Regional Haze method of determining trends (the difference between baseline and progress period averages) ADEQ also provided an alternative analysis that uses year to year changes to derive an overall trend through the entire data record from 2000 through 2010. The Theil method, a nonparametric regression technique, was used to characterize ten-year visibility trends at the Class I areas and determine their statistical significance. This type of method is useful since it does not make assumptions about the distribution of values or their uncertainties. This reduces the impact of outliers and large interannual variability, often seen in ambient air quality data, on the estimated trend. EPA has used these methods for characterizing air quality trends as well as in reports on visibility trends. This method tests whether the value from year to year in a dataset tends to increase or decrease consistently; it is not concerned with the magnitude of the year-to-year differences, only the significance and direction of the trend.
The comparison of baseline and progress averages shows that visibility impairment on best and worst 20 percent days has remained constant or decreased at most sites. The worst 20 percent days at GRCA2 and IKBA1 show a slight decrease in visibility. Organic carbon is the largest contributor to extinction during the progress period at these sites, and there were large wildfires impacting GRCA2 and IKBA1 in 2009 and 2005, respectively. ADEQ replaced fire-affected data with long term averages and found in both cases that the new progress period average visibility was higher than the baseline period, also demonstrating the sensitivity of these trends to infrequent, high extinction events. The Theil method detected no significant increasing trends in total extinction from 2000 to 2009.
The analysis of trends in the species contributing to extinction yield mixed results which are presented in more detail in section 11.4.3 ADEQ's supplement. In particular, the regional haze method of comparing period averages shows increases in ammonium sulfate extinction on the worst 20 percent days at most sites, but the Theil method determined that there was no statistically significant annual increasing trend. The Regional Haze Rule method also showed increasing extinction at BALD1, SAGU1, SYCA1 and TONT1, but only the trend at BALD1 was statistically significant using the Theil method. ADEQ did further analysis of the monitoring data to evaluate if any of the trends observed were due to anthropogenic sources, rather than interannual variability in natural events.
One characteristic of the Regional Haze method in determining trends of 20 percent worst or best total extinction days is that the causes of the visibility impairment on the days with a certain level of total extinction can shift due to changing emission patterns, including interannual variability of large natural events. This can, for example, lead to worst days in one year more affected by anthropogenic emissions, while worst days in other years are dominated by events such as large wildfires. Convoluting these sources in estimating trends obscures the underlying trends in visibility due to controllable emissions, especially in the contribution of individual species. For example, if worst days in the baseline period were caused primarily by wildfire emissions, and there were fewer wildfires in the progress period, the progress period worst days are more impacted by anthropogenic sources. This can lead to misinterpretation of percent contribution since the dominant contributing species could shift from organic carbon to ammonium sulfate, without necessarily an increase in the emissions of ammonium sulfate between the two periods.
Further analyses on ammonium sulfate trends
The analysis of the 20 percent worst ammonium sulfate days submitted by ADEQ demonstrated that there was not a significant increasing trend at any site using the Theil method. There was still an increase in the base and progress period averages, but ADEQ asserts that this can be explained by anomalously high ammonium sulfate impairment in 2005 and 2007, leading to an uncharacteristically high average for the 2005-2009 period. In fact, ADEQ notes that shifting the 2005 year to the baseline period results in decreasing differences between the two periods at all sites except TONT1. Regional data indicated that there were large contributions to visibility impairment throughout the entire four corners area. In 2005, there were anomalous number of ammonium sulfate spike events in the summer and fall, and the frequency of the events made it difficult to differentiate specific sources. In the May 3, 2013 RH supplement, ADEQ asserted that there were no anomalous elevated anthropogenic emissions in 2005 after reviewing all significant sources of SO2 in the State (including coal-fired power plants and copper smelters). Data submitted for six large SO2 sources showed that 2005 was, in fact, lower than prior years for most of the facilities.
ADEQ did investigate further the cause of the August 2007 ammonium sulfate event that largely drove the 2007 value for 20 percent worst ammonium sulfate days. Back trajectories indicate that the plume source was to the southeast of the CHIR1 monitor, very likely outside Arizona (Figure G of ADEQ May 2013 submittal). This was supported by tracking the peak in monitored ammonium sulfate extinction at IMPROVE monitors first through Texas, then New Mexico and finally into Arizona over the course of the episode (see Figures H-L of ADEQ May 2013 submittal). Removing the data from this episode in 2007, as well as the anomalous 2005 data year results in decreases in the extinction on the 20 percent most impaired ammonium sulfate days between the baseline period and the alternate progress period of 2006-2010.
Further analyses on coarse mass trends
The analysis of the 20 percent worst coarse mass (CM) days submitted by ADEQ demonstrated that there was only a significant increasing trend at PEFO1 using the Theil method. Most sites exhibit no significant trend, with GRCA2 and SYCA1 showing a decrease in 20 percent worst CM days. ADEQ further evaluated the data from the PEFO1 monitor and found there was a large amount of interannual variability in the number of high CM days in late March to early June throughout the monitoring period. In particular, each year from 2008-2010 had an increasing number of these episodes relative to the previous year. This increase in episode frequency is responsible for the apparent increasing trend in 20% worst days between the baseline and progress periods. ADEQ chose the four highest CM days in 2010 to analyze further to understand the events contributing to elevated CM extinction. Back trajectories from these days indicate that windblown dust from area sources are more likely the source of these elevated CM impacts than the nearby point sources. More generally, there was also a lack of a pattern statewide between the observed amount of (and trend in) impairment due to coarse mass, and the proximity and size of nearby large PM10 point sources. These results along with inverse relationships between the CM observed data and precipitation patterns throughout the state support the conclusion that the CM extinction is more affected by area sources, rather than point sources.


[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21885-21889]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-31]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0313; FRL-8557-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; Pesticide
Element; Ventura County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is proposing to approve a
revision of the California State Implementation Plan submitted by the
California Air Resources Board on November 30, 2007. The revision would
in part, and temporarily, relax a commitment to

reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds in Ventura County caused
by the application of pesticides. EPA is proposing this action under
the Clean Air Act obligation to take action on submittals of revisions
to state implementation plans.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0313, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or deliver: Raymond Chavira (AIR-2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Chavira, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-
4218<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The State's SIP Revision Submittal
    A. What revisions did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this SIP element?
    C. What is the purpose of the SIP revision?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision
    A. How is EPA evaluating the revision?
    B. Does the revision meet the evaluation criteria?
IV. Public Comment and Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or ``Act''), many
parts of the country, including California's Ventura County, were
designated as nonattainment for the ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS), which, at the time, was 0.12 ppm, 1-hour average.
Under the Act, States with nonattainment areas were required to
develop, adopt and submit SIP revisions that included sufficient
control measures to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by deadlines also
established in the Act. In response, in 1994, the State of California
developed, adopted and submitted an ozone State Implementation Plan
(SIP) (``1994 Ozone SIP'') to provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS
in all areas of California.
    As part of the 1994 Ozone SIP, California adopted a Pesticide
Element that committed the State to reduce volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions resulting from the application of agricultural and
structural pesticides in certain ozone nonattainment areas. For the
Ventura County nonattainment area (Ventura), the California Department
of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) committed to adopt and submit to EPA by
June 15, 1997, any regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions from
agricultural and structural pesticides by 20 percent of the 1990 base
year emissions by 2005. California further defined DPR's commitment in
Ventura under the Pesticide Element in terms of VOC emissions
reductions of 2.4 tons per day by 2005.\1\ See 62 FR 1150, at 1169-1170
and at 1187 (January 8, 1997); and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)(6) and
52.220(c)(236). In 1997, we approved the 1994 Ozone SIP, including the
Pesticide Element. See 62 FR 1150, at 1169-1170 (January 8, 1997). In
today's document, we propose to approve a revision by California of the
Pesticide Element for Ventura County.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tonnage commitment is 2.37 tons per day per letter dated
June 13, 1996, from James D. Boyd to David Howekamp, including
``Corrections to State and Local Measures'' (Attachment A) and
``Summary Emission Reduction Spreadsheets'' (Attachment C).
    \2\ Several environmental groups successfully sued the State of
California for failure to adopt regulations necessary to achieve the
VOC emissions reduction committed to under the Pesticide Element.
See El Comite v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912 (E.D.Cal. 2006). The
ensuing court order has led DPR to adopt a regulation that achieves
all of the VOC emission reductions previously committed to for
Ventura County beginning with the peak ozone season (May through
October) in 2008. We are not taking action on DPR's regulation in
today's action, but rather, are taking action on a revision of the
Pesticide Element that, if finalized as proposed, will allow
California to seek a modification to the court order followed by
conforming changes to DPR's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Meanwhile, EPA has replaced the 0.12 ppm, 1-hour ozone NAAQS with
0.08 ppm, 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997). EPA has also
designated all areas of the country with respect to the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. In so doing, EPA designated Ventura County as nonattainment for
ozone with a classification of ``moderate'' (69 FR 23889, April 30,
2004). On February 14, 2008,\3\ California requested EPA to reclassify
Ventura County from ``moderate'' to ``serious'' with a new attainment
date of 2012. EPA has not taken action yet on the State's voluntary
request to reclassify Ventura County to ``serious,'' but is mandated
under the CAA to grant such request, and thus, is reviewing the subject
SIP revision assuming that Ventura's classification for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS will in the near future become ``serious.'' See CAA section
181(b)(3). Under EPA's phase I implementation rule for the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, certain ``applicable requirements'' that applied under 1-hour
ozone NAAQS planning requirements continue to apply to 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 51.900(f). The ``Pesticide Element'' is
not one of the applicable requirements under our phase I rule for the
8-hour ozone NAAQS but represents, instead, a ``discretionary''
measure, which means that California may relax or repeal it through a
SIP revision so long as generally applicable procedural and substantive
requirements for such revisions are met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See February 14, 2008 letter from CARB Executive Officer
James Goldstene to Wayne Nastri, EPA Region 9 Regional
Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The State's SIP Revision Submittal

A. What revisions did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the revision we are proposing to approve with the
dates that

it was revised and submitted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB).

                           Table 1.--Submitted SIP Revision Proposed for Full Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           State agency                   SIP revision              Amended                  Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CARB.............................  Revised Proposed Revision  November 30, 2007..  November 30, 2007.
                                    to the Pesticide Element
                                    of the 1994 Ozone SIP
                                    for the Ventura County
                                    Nonattainment Area
                                    (August 13, 2007).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's November 30, 2007 SIP revision submittal package includes
the ``Revised Proposed Revision to the Pesticide Element of the 1994
Ozone SIP for the Ventura County Nonattainment Area (August 13, 2007)''
(``Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura'') as attachment 3 to
Executive Order S-07-003.\4\ The November 30, 2007 SIP revision
submittal also includes a copy of CARB's Resolution 07-42, dated
September 27, 2007, approving the Revised Pesticide Element for
Ventura, and evidence of public participation including CARB's response
to public comments and a public hearing held on September 27, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura is also referred
to as ``Appendix H'' because it was originally included as such for
the Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State
Implementation Plan, but was subsequently pulled from that document
for separate SIP processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, under the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP,
DPR committed to adopt and submit to EPA by June 15, 1997, any
regulations necessary to reduce VOC emissions resulting from
agricultural and structural pesticides in Ventura by 20 percent of the
1990 base year emissions, and by 2.4 tons per day, by 2005. Under the
Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, CARB commits to substitute
specific ``surplus'' emissions reductions for a portion of the existing
Pesticide Element commitment for Ventura. See Table 3 of the Revised
Pesticide Element for Ventura. Under the Revised Pesticide Element for
Ventura, CARB reduces the amount of the substitution each year such
that no substitution is made in year 2012 and thereafter, thus
restoring the full VOC commitment under the Pesticide Element of the
1994 Ozone SIP. CARB cites California's on-going mobile source emission
control program, which, in CARB's view, has achieved greater-than-
expected VOC emissions reductions, as the source for the substitute VOC
emissions reductions.

B. Are there other versions of this SIP element?

    As discussed above, we approved the Pesticide Element, including
the specific emissions reduction commitments, as part of the 1994
California Ozone SIP (62 Federal Register 1169-1170, January 8, 1997).
We have yet to approve DPR's regulation implementing the Pesticide
Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP and do not propose to do so as part of
this action.

C. What is the purpose of the SIP revision?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations
that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate
matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the
environment. Ozone is formed by the interaction of directly-emitted
precursor emissions, VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), in the presence
of sunlight under the influence of meteorological and topographical
features of an area. California adopted the Pesticide Element as one of
the commitments to help attain the ozone NAAQS in the State of
California. As part of the Pesticide Element of the 1994 Ozone SIP,
California adopted specific VOC emissions reduction commitments for
Ventura County in support of the attainment demonstration for the ozone
NAAQS in that area. California has now revised the Pesticide Element to
reduce in part, and temporarily, the VOC emissions reduction
commitments for Ventura County to avoid short-term, but potentially
significant, economic losses by strawberry farmers and the potential
for long-term loss of farmland to urban development. The State has
submitted the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura to EPA for approval
as a revision of the California SIP.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision

A. How is EPA evaluating the revision?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable and must not interfere
with an area's progress towards attainment or any other requirement of
the Act. See CAA sections 110(a), 110(l); see also CAA section 193
(antibacksliding requirements for pre-1990 control measures). CAA
section 110(l) directs EPA to disapprove any SIP revision that would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or
reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the
Act. CAA section 193 does not apply to this action because the
Pesticide Element was not part of the pre-1990 California SIP and thus,
a revision to the Pesticide Element does not modify a control
requirement in effect before passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990.

B. Does the revision meet the evaluation criteria?

    CAA section 110(l) provides: ``Each revision to an implementation
plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by such
State after reasonable notice and public hearing. The Administrator
shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title) or any
other applicable requirement of this chapter.'' The term ``reasonable
further progress'' (RFP) is defined in section 7501 (CAA section 171)
as ``such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant
air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be
required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of
the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable
date.'' We interpret CAA section 110(l) as requiring EPA to ensure that
the state, in seeking a revision to its SIP, does not impair its
compliance with the statutory mandates applicable to the SIP.
    As noted above, under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura,
CARB substitutes ``surplus'' VOC emissions reductions from California's
mobile source emission control program for a portion of the State's VOC
emissions reduction commitments from application of pesticides. Because
emissions reductions from California's mobile source emissions control
program are included in the baseline for 8-hour ozone planning
purposes, we do not view the emissions reductions as ``surplus'' With
respect to RFP and attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Rather, we
view the Revised Pesticide

Element for Ventura as simply a reduction in the State's emissions
reduction commitments leading to an increase, albeit temporarily, in
VOC emissions in Ventura relative to what otherwise would occur.
Specifically, we view the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura as
reducing the State's commitments by 1.3 tons per day in 2008, 1.0 tons
per day in 2009, 0.7 tons per day in 2010, and 0.3 tons per day in
2011, and thereby allowing corresponding increases in VOC in those
years. Under the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, we note that
there would be no reduction in the State's SIP commitment by year 2012
and thereafter.
    We have developed two tables to present the effects of the Revised
Pesticide Element for Ventura. Table 2 compares the emissions reduction
commitments under the existing SIP with those that would exist under
the Revised Pesticide Element and shows how CARB's substitutions link
the two sets of emissions reduction commitments. Table 3 converts the
emissions reduction commitments shown in Table 2 into corresponding VOC
emissions estimates in Ventura County resulting from application of
pesticides. As shown in Table 3, allowable VOC emissions under the
different emissions reduction commitments would increase from 3.7 to
4.3 tons per day in 2008 under the Revised Pesticide Element from 2.4
to 3.0 tons per day under the existing Pesticide Element. The increase
would decline in stages to the ultimate VOC emissions cap from this
source category under the emissions reduction commitments of 2.5
(rounded from 2.45) tons per day in 2012.

  Table 2.--Commitments for VOC Emission Reductions (in Tons Per Day) From Pesticides Under the Existing SIP and Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Pesticide element in existing SIP       CARB          Revised pesticide element \b\
                                                                                \a\                  substitution  -----------------------------------
                                                                 ------------------------------------     of VOC       20 Percent reduction     Tonnage
                                                                   20 Percent reduction     Tonnage      emission    -----------------------------------
                              Year                               ------------------------------------   reductions
                                                                                under revised
                                                                     1990        1991        2005        pesticide       1990        1991        2005
                                                                                element
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................................         1.8         2.2         2.4             1.3         0.5         0.9         1.1
2009............................................................         1.8         2.2         2.4             1.0         0.8         1.2         1.4
2010............................................................         1.8         2.2         2.4             0.6         1.2         1.6         1.8
2011............................................................         1.8         2.2         2.4             0.3         1.5         1.9         2.1
2012+...........................................................         1.8         2.2         2.4             0.0         1.8         2.2         2.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The emissions reductions shown for 1990 and 1991 under the percent reduction commitment represent the differences between current VOC pesticide
  emissions (assumed to be the same as 2004, i.e., 4.826 tpd) and 80 percent of 1990 (3.756 tpd) and 1991 (i.e., 3.293 tpd), respectively. DPR's
  September 29, 2007 memorandum from Terrell Barry, Ph.D., Research Scientist III, DPR, et al to John Sanders, Ph.D., Chief, Environmental Monitoring
  Branch, DPR is the source for 1990, 1991, and 2004 emissions estimates. The 1994 Ozone SIP anticipated that 1991 pesticide use records would be used
  to adjust emissions for 1990. It is not clear whether DPR's September 29, 2007 VOC emissions estimates for 1990 or 1991 reflect the calculation method
  described in the 1994 Ozone SIP.
\b\ Calculated by subtracting CARB's substitution from the emission reduction commitments in the Pesticide Element of the Existing SIP.

   Table 3.--VOC Emissions From Application of Pesticides in Ventura County Under Existing SIP Commitments and Under the Revised Pesticide Element for
                                                                         Ventura
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Pesticide element in existing SIP       CARB          Revised pesticide element \b\
                                                                                \a\                  substitution  -----------------------------------
                                                                 ------------------------------------     of VOC       20 Percent reduction     Tonnage
                                                                   20 Percent reduction     Tonnage      emission    -----------------------------------
                              Year                               ------------------------------------   reductions
                                                                                under revised
                                                                     1990        1991        2005        pesticide       1990        1991        2005
                                                                                element
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008............................................................         3.0         2.6         2.5             1.3         4.3         3.9         3.8
2009............................................................         3.0         2.6         2.5             1.0         4.0         3.6         3.5
2010............................................................         3.0         2.6         2.5             0.6         3.6         3.2         3.1
2011............................................................         3.0         2.6         2.5             0.3         3.3         2.9         2.8
2012+...........................................................         3.0         2.6         2.5             0.0         3.0         2.6         2.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The emissions estimates shown in these columns subtract the emission reduction commitments shown in Table 2 under the existing SIP with emissions
  estimated for 2004 (and assumed for planning purposes by California thereafter until 2012, i.e., 4.82 tpd). See page C-2 of the Final Draft Ventura
  County 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (March 2008).
\b\ Calculated by adding CARB substitutions to the VOC emissions estimates for pesticides under the existing SIP.

    Thus, the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura would have an
impact on air quality in the short term as it would slow down slightly
the improvement in ozone levels as compared to fully achieving the
commitments for pesticide emission reductions in the 1994 Ozone SIP.
However, the revision phases out over four years ensuring that it would
not interfere with Ventura's ability to attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by the serious area deadline in 2012. In 2012, the emissions reduction
commitments are 2.4 tpd (rounded from 2.37).
    For ozone, the Revised Pesticide Element would not affect
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the revision would be
phased-out by 2012. In other words, under the Revised Pesticide
Element, the emissions reduction commitments under the 1994 Ozone SIP
would be fully restored by 2012. Therefore, our approval of the
revision would not interfere with Ventura's attainment of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
    The only remaining question with respect to ozone is whether the
Revised Pesticide Element would interfere with 8-hour ozone RFP.
Ventura has completed its Final Draft 8-hour ozone SIP, including an
RFP plan,\5\

demonstrating attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the ``serious''
area deadline. The RFP plan includes an air quality analysis that
demonstrates RFP toward attaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS without the
attribution of VOC emission reductions from pesticides. Based on the
air quality analysis contained in the RFP plan, Ventura meets the RFP
milestone year reductions and the three percent contingency
requirements for ``serious'' areas in 2008, 2011, and 2012 with a
combination of VOC and NOX reductions. The State adjusted
the milestone year emissions for local and state control measures
already adopted through December 31, 2006. These adjustments do not
include any adjustment for VOC emission reductions from pesticides.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Ventura County Air Pollution Control District ``Final
Draft 2007 Air Quality Management Plan'', March 2008, pp. 71-74,
included in the docket for this proposed rule.
    \6\ For all milestone years, the RFP plan assumes 4.82 tons per
day from pesticides. In contrast, if the RFP plan had relied on
emission reductions commitments in the Pesticide Element of the 1994
Ozone SIP or the Revised Pesticide Element proposed for approval
herein, the VOC emissions from this source category would have
ranged from 2.5 tons per year to 4.3 tons per day depending upon
specific commitment and year. See Table 3 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA approved Ventura's 15 percent rate-of-progress plan for the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS on January 8, 1997 (see 62 FR 1169). EPA's final 8-
hour ozone RFP rule does not require serious and above 8-hour ozone
nonattainment areas with approved 15 percent rate-of-progress VOC plans
for the 1-hour ozone standard to do another 15 percent VOC-only
reduction for the 8-hour ozone standard. See 70 FR 71612 (November 29,
2005) and 73 FR 15418-9 (March 24, 2008). Rather, those areas must
reduce VOC and/or NOX emissions by an average of three
percent per year for the first six-year period following the baseline
year plus all remaining three-year periods out to their attainment
dates. Therefore the RFP plan includes a combination of VOC and
NOX reductions. The RFP plan also includes transport
contributions from the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin within 100
kilometers of Ventura. The State followed guidance in EPA's fine
particulate matter Implementation Rule for crediting VOC and
NOX reductions from outside the nonattainment area for RFP
purposes.\7\ See 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007) and 73 FR 15418-9 (March
24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7 \ See Harnett-Zaw-Mon RFP memo, October 11, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This SIP revision only concerns VOC emissions. Emissions of VOCs
contribute to the formation of ozone. Therefore, given that Ventura is
unclassifiable/attainment for all NAAQS other than ozone,\8\ we
conclude non-interference of the SIP revision with continued attainment
of NAAQS other than ozone \9\ in Ventura.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA has promulgated NAAQS for the following pollutants:
carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, ozone
and sulfur oxides (sulfur dioxide), see 40 CFR 50.
    \9\ The applicable ozone NAAQS is the 8-hour standard. The 1-
hour ozone NAAQS was revoked effective June 25, 2005, see 70 FR
44470.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we conclude that this SIP revision would not interfere
with any applicable requirements for attainment and reasonable further
progress or any other applicable requirement of the CAA and is thus
approvable under CAA section 110(l).

IV. Public Comment and Final Action

    Under section 110(k) of the Clean Air Act, we are proposing to
approve the Revised Pesticide Element for Ventura, submitted to EPA on
November 30, 2007 by CARB. We intend to defer final action on this
proposed approval until we receive a SIP revision submittal from
California containing the final 8-hour ozone Ventura RFP Plan. We will
consider the final plan and any related public comments on the plan, as
well as comments on this proposal, before we take final action on the
Pesticide Element SIP Revision.

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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, 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, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: April 15, 2008.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8-8812 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 238 (Thursday, December 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79486-79487]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27130]

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

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: ER10-2732-019; ER10-2733-019; ER10-2734-019; ER10-
2736-019; ER10-2737-019; ER10-2741-019; ER10-2749-020; ER10-2752-019;
ER12-2492-015; ER12-2493-015; ER12-2494-015; ER12-2495-015; ER12-2496-
015; ER16-2455-009; ER16-2456-009; ER16-2457-009; ER16-2459-009; ER18-
1404-005; ER19-2096-002.
    Applicants: Emera Energy Services, Inc., Emera Energy LNG, LLC,
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 1 LLC, Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 2 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 3 LLC, Emera
Energy Services Subsidiary No. 4 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary
No. 5 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 6 LLC, Emera Energy
Services Subsidiary No. 7 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 8
LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 9 LLC, Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 10 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 11 LLC,
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 12 LLC, Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 13 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 15 LLC,
Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 1, Inc., Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary
No. 2, Inc., NS Power Energy Marketing Inc.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for Southeast Region of
the Emera Entities.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/1/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-3025-001.
    Applicants: GridLiance High Plains LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: GridLiance High Plains LLC
Deficiency Filing ER20-3025 to be effective 11/29/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-292-001.
    Applicants: Oakland Power Company LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deferral of Commission Action to
Permit Ongoing Settlement Discussions to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-562-000.
    Applicants: Leaf River Cellulose, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-563-000.
    Applicants: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Operations LLC, Savannah.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Electric Tariff
Cancellation to be effective 12/31/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-564-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits Two ECSAs, SA
Nos. 5778 and 5779 to be effective 2/2/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-565-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEC-PMPA NITSA SA 355 to be
effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/3/20.
    Accession Number: 20201203-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-566-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SA 902--NITSA with Montana
State University to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-567-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a CIAC Agreement
to be effective 12/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-568-000.

    Applicants: Lanyard Power Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Lanyard Power Holdings, LLC
Notice of Succession to be effective 11/13/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-569-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a CIAC Agreement
to be effective 12/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-570-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a CIAC Agreement
to be effective 2/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-571-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, Service
Agreement No. 4766; Queue No. AB1-124 to be effective 8/7/2017.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-572-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: GIA & DSA Mammoth-Pacific,
L.P. SA Nos. 1128-1129 to be effective 12/7/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-573-000.
    Applicants: Chalk Point Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 2/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-574-000.
    Applicants: Dickerson Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 2/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-575-000.
    Applicants: Lanyard Power Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 2/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-576-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement SEGS
Expansion Hybrid Project SA No. 259 to be effective 12/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5095.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-577-000.
    Applicants: Morgantown Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 2/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-578-000.
    Applicants: Morgantown Station, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based
Rate Authorization to be effective 2/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-579-000.
    Applicants: Lanyard Power Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Tariffs
to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-580-000.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Basin Electric Amendment to
Service Agreement No. 103 to be effective 10/29/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-581-000.
    Applicants: Morgantown Station, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Proposed Morgantown Station
Reactive Supply Service Tariff to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5112.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-582-000.
    Applicants: Morgantown Power, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Proposed Morgantown Power
Reactive Supply Service Tariff to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-583-000.
    Applicants: Dickerson Power, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Proposed Dickerson Power
Reactive Supply Service Tariff to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-584-000.
    Applicants: Chalk Point Power, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Proposed Chalk Point Power
Reactive Supply Service Tariff to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-585-000.
    Applicants: Chalk Point Steam, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Proposed Chalk Point Steam
Reactive Supply Service Tariff to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-586-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA,
SA No. 5295; Queue No. AB1-137 re: breach to be effective 11/30/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/4/20.
    Accession Number: 20201204-5132.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/20.

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

    Dated: December 4, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-27130 Filed 12-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 01/07/2008 03:14 PM

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

RE: wegman/OMB/ABCG - re: Ozone NAAQS RIA baseline issues - Room #C501A - Call-in #919-541-4407

Thanks - got it,<PHONE_NUMBER>

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:53 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Subject: Fw: wegman/OMB/ABCG - re: Ozone NAAQS RIA baseline issues -

Room #C501A - Call-in #919-541-4407

For Friday morning baseline discussion.

----- Forwarded by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US on 01/07/2008 02:51 PM -----

  Calendar Entry

  Meeting

                           |---------------|

                           | [ ] Notify me |

                           |---------------|

                                        Alarm settings

                           |------------------|

                           | [ ] Mark Private |

                           |------------------|

                                        |---------------|

                                        | [ ] Pencil In |

                                        |---------------|

    Subject

Chair

              wegman/OMB/ABCG - re: Ozone NAAQS RIA baseline issues -

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

              Room #C501A - Call-in #919-541-4407

Sent By

Margaret Morrison

    When

Where

              Starts

Location

                   Fri 01/11/2008

                                 11:00 AM

Rooms

OAQPS Conf Room C501A/RTP OAQPS

BLDG C@EPA

              Ends

                   Fri 01/11/2008

Categorize

                                 12:00 PM

                                          1 hour

    Invitees

              Required (to)

                        Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David

                        Misenheimer/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Janet

                        Cakir/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken

                        Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron

                        Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

              Optional (cc)

                        Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

    Description

POC:  Ron Evans - x5488

    Your Notes


HopGuard® Technical Grade of Active Ingredient

(Potassium Beta Resin)

HopGuard Technical Grade Active Ingredient is for formulation into a
Manufacturing Use Product for use in beehives to control Varroa mites
(Varroa destructor) on honey bees

ACTIVE INGREDIENTS:
       BY WEIGHT

                        Potassium Salts of Hop Beta
Acids…………………………48.02%

OTHER INGREDIENTS:
…………………………………………….….51.98%

                 TOTAL             100.0%

KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN

Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals

Danger:  Corrosive. Causes irreversible eye damage. Do not get in eyes
or on clothing. Wear (specify appropriate protective eyewear such as
goggles, face shield, or safety glasses).

Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling and before eating,
drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using the toilet. Remove and
wash contaminated clothing before reuse.

DANGER

FIRST AID

.

IF IN EYES: 	Hold eyelids open and flush with a steady, gentle stream of
water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the
first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing eye. Call a poison control center
or doctor for advice

IF ON SKIN OR  	Take off contaminated clothing.

CLOTHING:	Rinse skin immediately with plenty of water for 15-20 minutes.

Call a poison control center or doctor for further treatment advice.

IF SWALLOWED: 	Call a poison control center or doctor immediately for
treatment advice.

Have person sip a glass of water if able to swallow.

Do not induce vomiting unless told to do so by poison control center or
doctor.

Do not give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.

Have the product container or label with you when calling a poison
control center or doctor, or going for treatment.  You may also contact
1-800-858-7378 for emergency medical treatment.

For general information on product use, etc., call the National
Pesticides Information Center at 1-800-858-7378. For emergencies, call
the poison control center 1-800-222-1222.

Note to Physician: “Probable mucosal damage may contraindicate the use
of gastric lavage”. See label back panel for additional precautionary
statements.

EPA Registration Number 83623-G              EPA Establishment Number
84623

Net Contents: 50 Gallons

Personal Protection Equipment (PPE): Applicators and other handlers must
wear appropriate protective eyewear, such as face shield or goggles long
sleeved shirt and long pants, waterproof gloves and shoes plus socks.

USER SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS:  Users must:

Wash hands before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using
the toilet.

Remove clothing immediately if pesticide gets inside.  Then wash
thoroughly and put on clean clothing.

Remove PPE immediately after handling this product.  Wash the outside of
gloves before removing.  As soon as possible, wash thoroughly and change
into clean clothing.

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner
inconsistent with its labeling.

Only for use in formulation into EPA registered pesticides. Formulators
using this product are responsible for providing data required by EPA
for registration of their products. This product may be used to
formulate other products than listed on the Manufacturing or End Use
Product label if the formulator, user group, or grower has complied with
U.S. EPA data submission requirements regarding the support of such
use(s)

STORAGE AND DISPOSAL

HopGuard Liquid must be stored in the original tightly sealed drums in a
cool, dark area. Unused, unregistered product must either be returned to
the manufacturer or distributor in unopened containers.

Manufactured by: BetaTec Hop Products, Inc., a Division of John I. Haas,
Inc., 1600 River Road, Yakima, WA 98902


Note to Reader:  Imidacloprid Aquatic Assessment

The following documents are being made available to the public prior to
the publication of an upcoming Federal Register Notice, and are posted
in docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844.  The Federal Register Notice announcing
their availability and opening the public comment period will post at a
later date. If you have any questions, contact Ricardo Jones via phone
(703-347-0493) or email (  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>).

Preliminary Aquatic Risk Assessment to Support the Registration Review
of Imidacloprid.  K. Sappington. M. Ruhman, and J. Housenger. December
22, 2016.

Initial Response to Themes in the Public Comments Submitted on the
Preliminary Pollinator Risk Assessment to Support the Registration
Review of Imidacloprid. January 2017.

Registration Review Update on the Four Neonicotinoid Insecticides.
January 2017.

.

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460


[Federal Register: July 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 43277-43278]
[DOCID:fr24jy08-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notification of Policy Revisions, and Requests for Comments on
the Percentage of Fabrication and Assembly That Must Be Completed by an
Amateur Builder To Obtain an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate for
an Amateur-Built Aircraft; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces an extension of the comment period for
the proposed revisions to Chapter 4, Special Airworthiness
Certification, Section 9 of the FAA Order 8130.2F, Airworthiness
Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, and Advisory Circular
(AC) 20-27G, Certification and Operation of Amateur-Built Aircraft (AC
20-27G is

the result of combining AC 20-27F and AC 20-139, Commercial Assistance
During Construction of Amateur-Built Aircraft), as well as for comments
on the percentage of fabrication and assembly that must be completed by
an amateur builder to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate
for an amateur-built aircraft. These and other related documents are
located on the FAA main Web page. The Web link is: http://www.faa.gov/
aircraft/draft_docs/display_docs/index.cfm?Doc_Type=Pubs.

DATES: Please submit your comments on or before September 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments via e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>via fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> (ATTN: Miguel
Vasconcelos, AIR-230) or via mail or hand delivery to: Production and
Airworthiness Division (AIR-200), Federal Aviation Administration (Room
815), 800 Independence Ave, SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Miguel
Vasconcelos.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frank Paskiewicz, Manager, Production
and Airworthiness Division, AIR-200, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number:
(202) 267-8361.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 15, 2008 (73 FR 40652), the FAA published a notice
requesting comments on proposed changes to FAA Order 8130.2F and
Advisory Circular (AC) 20-27G, as well as comments on the percentage of
fabrication and assembly that must be completed by an amateur builder
to obtain an experimental airworthiness certificate for an amateur-
built aircraft. The comment close date of August 15, 2008 was not
specifically posted in that notice and was only available on the FAA
Web site. Because some interested parties may not have web access and,
therefore, may not have been aware of the original comment deadline,
the FAA has decided to extend the comment period by 45 days to
September 30, 2008, and to publish this announcement in the Federal
Register. This extension will also allow more time for the public to
participate and provide the FAA with more in-depth comments on the
proposed changes.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 21, 2008.
Frank Paskiewicz,
Manager, Production and Airworthiness Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-16989 Filed 7-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59671-59672]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23569]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0345; FRL-9536-7]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Metal Can Manufacturing Surface
Coating (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Metal Can
Manufacturing Surface Coating (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart KKKK)
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No. 2079.05, OMB Control No. 2060-0541), to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through October 31, 2013. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (78 FR 33409) on June 4, 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 October 28,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0345, to: (1) EPA online, using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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: Learia Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; 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
202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP for Metal Can Manufacturing Surface Coating at
40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes, or additions, to the
Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKK. Owners or
operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report
of any physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and
periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports
are required semiannually at a minimum.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Metal can manufacturing facilities
with surface coating operations.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart KKKK).
    Estimated number of respondents: 71 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually
    Total estimated burden: 27,517 hours (per year). ``Burden'' is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $3,258,800 (per year), includes $85,200
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the labor hours in
this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to two
considerations: (1) The regulations have not changed over the past
three years and are not anticipated to change over the next three
years; and (2) the growth rate for the respondents is very low,
negative or non-existent. Therefore, the labor hours in the previous
ICR reflect the current burden to the respondents and are reiterated in
this ICR. However, there is an adjustment increase in the respondent
cost due to labor rate increases.

Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-23569 Filed 9-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P