impact on the DFW area. As discussed in detail in a response above, we
concluded that the removal of CAIR may result in a change in 8-hour
ozone modeling values of 0.1-0.3 ppb. We also considered that fewer
engine controls were installed using the early compliance incentive
money that was available.
    We have also considered the progress in implementing the TERP
program. This program has achieved all of the reductions that were
projected in the May 30, 2007 submissions. These reductions were
included in the modeling. In its April 2008 letter, Texas indicated
that an additional 14.2 tpd of emission reductions could be achieved
through the additional funding made available by the legislature. EPA
relied on this projection as part of our weight of evidence evaluation
in our proposal. As discussed in the response to comments on the TERP
reductions, since our proposal notice, additional information has
become available on the status of TERP projects and the State's
progress in meeting its WOE projection of 14.2 tpd of NOX
emissions reductions in 2008 and early 2009. Recently TCEQ announced
they would be delaying the 2009 TERP grant application cycle, due to
Hurricane Ike. Due to this unfortunate delay (the grant application
cycle opened December 1, 2008), FY2009 grant money will be issued later
than originally thought. Approval of grants will not likely occur by
the beginning of the DFW ozone season (March 1, 2009), but approval of
grants should start in the May to early June timeframe. While this is
not by the beginning of the ozone season, it is soon enough that
reductions could start occurring before the core ozone season and
therefore additional reductions can be considered as weight of
evidence.
    This is confirmed by an examination of 2004-2007 and preliminary
2008 monitoring values for the typical design value monitors (north and
northwest sides of the DFW area) which is included in the supplemental
TSD. It shows that the 1st to 4th high 8-hour ozone values (values that
are utilized in setting the area's DV) are usually set in the June
through September timeframe.
    Since the approval of FY2009 grants should start before or during
the beginning of the core ozone period for the DFW area, some
additional reductions can be considered as WOE. At this point, it seems
unlikely that the full 14.2 tpd will be achieved even by the core ozone
season. To evaluate the impact, we assumed that TCEQ would achieve
approximately 70% of the originally projected 14.2 tpd; consequently,
there might be a loss in reductions of approximately 4.2 tpd. See the
Supplemental TSD. Then in looking at the modeling based WOE, the
increase in projected NOX would yield approximately an
additional 0.10 to 0.22 ppb at the monitors with the highest FDVs. We
have also revised our estimate of actual reductions between 2007 and
2009 to consider this potential loss in TERP emission reductions.
Rather than the 26% we considered at proposal, our new estimate is a
25.4% reduction of the estimated 2007 emission levels.
    Finally, over half of the previously discussed 25.4% reductions of
NOX emissions (between 2007 and 2009) in the DFW area are
slated to occur between the 2008 and 2009 ozone seasons. Due to these
large local

reductions, we expect the 2009 ozone levels to be lower than 2008
levels.
    In summary, EPA has considered a number of factors. As pointed out
by commenters, some control strategies, notably CAIR and TERP, are
likely not going to achieve the reductions originally expected. As
discussed above, we considered the impact of these factors to be
relatively small. We believe that at this time, with the attainment
date only months away, we should give considerable weight to the recent
air quality trends and to expected further reductions that will occur
before the 2009 core ozone season. Therefore, considering all of the
factors discussed above with the elements we considered in the proposal
(available modeling, evidence, analyses, and adopted control
strategies) and the comments we received, EPA believes the DFW area
will reach attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by its
attainment date.

E. Comments on Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCs)

    Comment: A commenter states that EPA's conditional approval of the
DFW attainment demonstration does not provide for adequate public
review and comment on the measures TCEQ has committed to implement. The
commenter is concerned that the public will not have the opportunity to
review and comment on the DERC flow control limit.
    Response: Section 110(k)(4) of the Act authorizes conditional
approval of ``a plan revision based on a commitment of the State to
adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later
than 1 year after the date of approval of the plan revision.''
Conditional approval is authorized when a SIP contains substantive, but
not fully satisfactory, provisions, and the State commits to submit
specific enforceable measures to cure the deficiencies. We have
proposed to conditionally approve the DFW attainment demonstration
conditioned on the TCEQ submitting a complete SIP revision by March 1,
2009, that includes an enforceable mechanism providing a 3.2 tpd
restriction on the amount of DERCs available for use in the DFW area
starting March 1, 2009. If the State wishes to use more than 3.2 tpd of
DERCs in the DFW area after 2009, there must be an enforceable
mechanism that provides for increases above 3.2 tpd beginning January
1, 2010 as long as this increase is consistent with attainment and
maintenance of the standard.
    Section 110(a)(2) of the Act and 40 CFR Part 51 require the State
to conduct a 30-day public comment period and hold a public hearing on
a proposed SIP revision submittal. Further, the State must include in
the adopted SIP revision submittal a response to all the received
comments. The TCEQ has proceeded with a proposed rulemaking and held a
public comment period, pursuant to the requirements of the Act and 40
CFR Part 51, from August 6 through September 12, 2008, on the proposed
DERC SIP revision to meet the condition. Additionally, the State
published the proposal in the Texas Register and held public hearings
on September 9, 2008, in Dallas, Texas and on September 10, 2008, in
Arlington, Texas. EPA and others provided comments.
    Upon receipt from the TCEQ of a complete DERC SIP revision, EPA
will review it and propose action in the Federal Register. In this
notice, we will provide, as required by the Act, an opportunity for a
30-day public comment period.
    The public is provided with three separate opportunities to review
and comment on the DERC SIP revision--during (1) the comment period for
EPA's proposed conditional approval of the DFW attainment
demonstration; (2) the comment period for the State's proposed
rulemaking; and (3) the comment period for EPA's proposed action on the
DERC SIP revision. Thus, EPA finds that there are ample opportunities
for public review and comment on the DERC SIP revision.
    Comment: A commenter states that EPA's conditional approval of the
DFW attainment demonstration relies upon the DERC rule; yet EPA has
only conditionally approved the DERC rule into the Texas SIP. The
commenter states that emission credits subject to the DERC rule should
not be relied upon as part of the attainment demonstration SIP until
EPA fully approves the DERC rule.
    Response: As noted in the previous response, the Act authorizes
conditional approval based on a State's commitment to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain. If the State fulfills its
commitment with respect to the DERC flow control limit and EPA approves
the submission, we believe the attainment demonstration will include
all enforceable measures necessary to attain by the attainment date.
The attainment demonstration cannot be fully approved until the State
submits and EPA approves the revision to the DERC rule providing for
the 3.2 TPD flow control limit. In the interim, as provided in the Act,
the plan may be conditionally approved with a commitment to submit the
necessary DERC rule revision.
    As the commenter notes, the DERC rule is already conditionally
approved (see 71 FR 52703, September 6, 2006). In our final conditional
approval of the DERC rule, we stated that a conditional approval is
treated as a full approval until such time that EPA takes action to
disapprove the rule. Therefore, it is acceptable for TCEQ to continue
allowing DERCs to be used within the DFW nonattainment area.
    Further, the terms of the 2006 DERC conditional approval do not
directly impact the DFW attainment demonstration and its DERC flow
control condition. TCEQ committed to making the following revisions to
the DERC rule in their September 8, 2005, commitment letter and to
comply with these commitments during the 2006 DERCs conditional
approval period:
    1. Revise Title 30 Texas Administrative Code (30 TAC) Sec.  101.373
to prohibit the future generation of DERCs from permanent shutdowns and
to allow DERCs generated and banked from permanent shutdowns prior to
September 30, 2002, to remain available for use for no more than five
years from the date of this letter.
    2. The TCEQ will perform a credit audit to remove from the
emissions bank all DERCs generated from permanent shutdowns after
September 30, 2002. Even if the shutdown itself occurred before
September 30, 2002, no DERCs can be generated from that event after
September 30, 2002.
    3. Revise 30 TAC Sec. Sec.  101.302(f), 101.372(f)(7) and
101.372(f)(8) to clarify that EPA approval is required for individual
transactions involving emission reductions generated in another state
or nation, as well as those transactions from one nonattainment area to
another, or from attainment counties into nonattainment areas. The TCEQ
further understands that the EPA would require a SIP revision prior to
approving a transaction between another state or nation, as well as
those transactions between counties not located within the same
nonattainment area.
    4. The TCEQ will revise Form DEC-1, Notice of Generation and
Generator Certification of Discrete Emission Credits; Form MDEC-1,
Notice of Generation and Generator Certification of Mobile Discrete
Emission Credits; and Form DEC-2, Notice of Intent to Use Discrete
Emission Credits, to include a waiver to the federal statute of
limitations defense for generators, and users of DERCs and mobile
discrete emission reduction credits (MDERCs). Please be reminded that
there is currently no applicable state statute of limitations in the
State of Texas. In addition, the TCEQ will maintain its current policy
of preserving all records relating to DERC and MDERC generation

and use for a minimum of five years after the use strategy has ended.
    5. Revise 30 TAC Sec. Sec.  101.302 and 101.372 to clarify that a
proposed quantification protocol may not be used if the TCEQ Executive
Director receives a letter from the EPA objecting to the use of the
protocol during the 45-day adequacy review period or if the EPA
proposes disapproval of the protocol in the Federal Register.
    6. Revise 30 TAC Sec.  101.306 to specify that Emission Reduction
Credits may be used within the highly reactive volatile organic
compounds Emissions Cap and Trade program as an annual allocation of
allowances as provided under 30 TAC Sec.  101.399.
    TCEQ submitted revisions to the DERC program on October 24, 2006 to
address the 2006 condition. EPA is currently reviewing this SIP
revision submittal and will take action at a later date and in a
separate rulemaking on whether TCEQ's revisions to the DERC program
adequately satisfied the terms of the 2006 DERC conditional approval.
In the meantime, the DERC program can continue to be used in Texas,
including the DFW area. Conditions 1 and 2 pertain to DERCs generated
through permanent shutdowns and provide that any shutdown DERCs
generated prior to September 30, 2002, in the DFW area would be
available for use until September 8, 2010. Projected uses of these pre-
September 30, 2002 shutdown DERCs were appropriately modeled and
accounted for by TCEQ as part of the overall DERC usage projections in
DFW. Emission reductions subject to condition 3 do not impact the DFW
attainment demonstration since EPA has not been contacted about using
discrete emission reductions in the DFW area that have been generated
in another state, nation, nonattainment area, or surrounding attainment
counties. Conditions 4 and 5 modify the DERC rule to align the DERC
generation and use procedures with EPA's Economic Incentive Program
Guidance. These conditions do not negatively impact the projected uses
of DERCs that were accounted for in the DFW attainment demonstration.
Condition 6 only applies to DERCs used in the Houston/Galveston/
Brazoria ozone nonattainment area and is therefore not applicable to
the DFW attainment demonstration.
    As discussed previously, TCEQ submitted revisions to the DERC
program on October 24, 2006 to meet the 2006 DERC condition. EPA is
currently reviewing these revisions to the Texas SIP and will take
action in a separate rulemaking. These revisions, as noted above, have
no impact upon the DFW area's attainment demonstration SIP and its
reliance upon DERCs.
    Comment: Commenters believe that the DERC usage limitation should
be required every year rather than allowing a different approach after
2009. Commenters also believe that the enforceable flow control
mechanism lacks specificity, may be backsliding (contrary to the Act's
requirements) and may not demonstrate continued attainment of the 1997
ozone standard in the DFW area.
    Response: Commenters will be able to address the substance of the
DERC flow control SIP revision and its effect on the attainment
demonstration once it is submitted to EPA. Until the State adopts and
submits this revision to the DERC rule, it is premature to speculate
about what the State might choose to do. However, we note that so long
as the State demonstrates that the adopted rule will not interfere with
attainment by June 2010 and maintenance of the NAAQS in the following
years, EPA cannot mandate that the State apply the same approach in
subsequent years that it chooses to apply in 2009.
    In our proposed conditional approval of the DFW attainment
demonstration, we described the requirements of the 2009 DERC flow
control condition and the enforceable mechanism that must relate it to
the DFW attainment demonstration. We specifically recognized that the
DERC usage limitation did not need to be required every year after
2009. For all years after 2009, the TCEQ will have the option to retain
the 3.2 tpd DERCs usage restriction or choose to increase the amount of
tpd of DERCs usage, as long as there is an enforceable and replicable
mechanism in place to ensure the increase in tpd of DERCs usage as
offset by other measures, continues to ensure attainment in the area by
having the same impact as if the 3.2 tpd DERCs usage restriction
remained in effect. This includes the quantity and spatial allocation
impacts of increased tpd of DERCs usage on the ozone levels. Therefore
there would be no backsliding, even if the amount of tpd of DERC usage
increased.
    In our proposal, we described a specific enforceable mechanism that
would be acceptable concerning the substitution of other measures
beginning January 1, 2010, allowing more than 3.2 tpd of DERCs usage in
a year. As discussed in our DERC response to comments number 1, the
public will receive three opportunities to review and comment on the
merits and nature of the 2009 DERCs limit and the after-2009
enforceable mechanism in the DFW area--during (1) the comment period
for EPA's proposed conditional approval of the DFW attainment
demonstration, (2) the comment period for the State's proposed
rulemaking, and (3) the comment period for EPA's proposed action on
whether the condition has been met.
    EPA believes that with the public review and comment opportunities
provided, as well as the specifications outlined in our proposed
conditional approval rulemaking, there will be sufficient opportunities
to ensure that EPA has received relevant comments and information to
allow EPA to make an informed decision on the acceptability and
enforceability of the TCEQ's DERCs SIP revision submittal.
    Comment: Commenter states that the DERC emission reductions relied
on in the DFW attainment demonstration are inadequate.
    Response: While EPA appreciates the effort and time of the
commenter, the commenter has not provided any substantive description
of why the DERC emission reductions relied on are inadequate for
attainment.

F. Comments on Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM)

    Comment: Numerous commenters note that the cement plants in the DFW
area are the largest source of industrial NOX emissions in
the DFW area. They claim there is available technology that would
reduce NOX emissions by 90% and the companies should be
required to install Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) as
NOX RACM. They also note that the cement kilns are a large
source of VOC emissions in the area but only one of ten kilns in
Midlothian uses modern controls to reduce VOC emissions by 90%.
Further, they claim that all Midlothian kilns should be required to
install this technology, i.e., Regenerative Thermal Oxidizers (RTOs),
as VOC RACM. Moreover, EPA needs to conduct an independent RACM
analysis.
    Response: EPA interprets the Act's RACM requirement to mean that a
measure is not RACM if it would not advance the attainment date (57 FR
13498, 13560).\12\ This interpretation has been upheld. See Sierra Club
v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155 (DC Cir. 2002) and Sierra Club v. United States
EPA, 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002). A state must consider all
potentially available measures to determine whether they are reasonably
available for implementation in the area,

and whether they would advance the area's attainment date. The state
may reject measures as not meeting RACM, however, if they would not
advance the attainment date, would cause substantial widespread and
long-term adverse impacts, or would be economically or technologically
infeasible. Additionally, potential measures requiring intensive and
costly implementation efforts are not RACM. Sierra Club v. EPA at 162-
163 (DC Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735 (5th Cir. 2002);
BCCA Appeal Group v. EPA, 355 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. 2003). To demonstrate
measures that advance attainment of the ozone standard, the emission
reductions from the measures must occur no later than the start of the
2008 ozone season--i.e., by March 1, 2008, in order to advance
attainment. Because there are no measures that could have been adopted
and implemented by a date that has now passed, we believe it is
appropriate to conclude that additional measures are not RACM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also EPA's ``Guidance on the Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM) Requirement and Attainment Demonstration
Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' John S. Seitz,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, November 30,
1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA expects States to prepare a reasoned justification for
rejection of any available control measure. The resulting available
control measures should then be evaluated for reasonableness
considering their technological and economical feasibility, and whether
they will advance attainment. In the case of the DFW SIP, TCEQ
performed an analysis to determine whether all RACM were included in
the SIP.
    To evaluate RACM for VOC measures, the State looked to all
available RACM analyses and guidance for all the types of source
categories in the DFW area and their potential controls. The State's
analysis included evaluation of the potential RACM RTO control
technology for cement kilns in the DFW area as VOC RACM. The State's
photochemical modeling, however, indicated that the implementation of
RTO technology on cement kilns in the DFW area would not advance
attainment. The State's analyses indicated that it would take extremely
large reductions of VOC emissions, over 100 tpd, to reduce the ozone
level at the Denton monitor \13\ in the DFW area by 1 ppb. Thus only
measures that will provide approximately 100 tpd of VOC emissions
reductions will timely advance attainment. We were unable to identify
any potential RACM measures in the State's submittal that would provide
100 tpd or more of VOC reductions; this review also examined the use of
RTO in cement kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ To determine whether a measure would be reasonable to
require for implementation, we calculated the magnitude of emissions
reductions that would advance the attainment date at the monitors
with the highest future design values (DVs), which are the Denton
and Frisco monitors. Of these two monitors, the Denton monitor has
the higher DV (2005-2007) of 94 ppb, although it should be noted
that the DV for the DFW area for 2005-2007 is 95 ppb. However,
considering the Denton monitor, if implementation of a particular
measure would result in a decrease of 1 ppb at the Denton monitor in
2008, we would consider such a measure as having the potential to
advance the attainment date in the DFW area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to reviewing the State's submittal, EPA reviewed the
State's 2005 and 2007 Emissions Inventories for Point Sources. This
review showed that the cement kilns do not emit sufficient amounts of
VOCs to achieve 100 tpd in emissions reductions. See the Supplemental
TSD for more details. Consequently, EPA agrees with the State that
there are no additional RACM for stationary source VOC emissions in the
DFW area. Based upon this review, EPA concludes that the use of RTO on
cement kilns would not advance timely attainment.
    While we agree that one of the sources in the cement kiln source
category uses the RTO technology--TXI 5 (Kiln 5), we do not
extrapolate from this that use of the RTO technology on the other
cement kilns in the DFW area will advance attainment of the 1997 ozone
standard. See our previous comments and the Supplemental TSD for
additional information.
    To evaluate RACM for NOX measures, the TCEQ looked to
all available RACM analyses and guidance for all the types of source
categories in the DFW area and their potential controls. The State's
analysis also included evaluation of Low Temperature Oxidation
Technology (LoTOx), SCR and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) as
potential NOX RACM for cement kilns. The State's modeling
analyses indicate that reducing on-road mobile and area/non-road
sources of NOX is most effective in reducing ozone levels at
the Denton and Frisco monitors. Our evaluation of the State's analyses
found that reductions of NOX emissions of at least 40 tpd
would have the potential to advance the attainment date. See pages 2-29
to 2-30 of the TCEQ SIP Narrative. Thus, only measures that will
provide approximately 40 tpd of NOX emissions reductions
will timely advance attainment. Neither the State nor EPA was able to
identify any potential RACM measures that would provide 40 tpd or more
in NOX emissions reductions. TCEQ had additional sensitivity
modeling performed for cement kilns, which showed that the most
stringent controls on the kilns would not advance the attainment date.
See the Supplemental TSD for more detail.
    The Fifth Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 745 (5th
Cir. 2002) impressed upon EPA the duty to (1) demonstrate that it has
examined relevant data, and (2) provide a satisfactory explanation for
its rejection of a proposed RACM and why the proposed RACM,
individually and in combination, would not advance the area's
attainment date. See Ober, 243 F.3d at 1195 (quoting American Lung
Ass'n v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388, 392-93 (DC Cir. 1998)). We reviewed the
State's analysis and discussed our evaluation of it in the July 2008
TSD and the December 2008 Supplemental TSD for this rulemaking; both
TSDs are in the docket for this rulemaking. EPA evaluated the State's
analysis and explained in the TSDs why we agree with the State that no
additional measures are RACM for the DFW area and therefore the RACM
requirement of the Act is met. We performed an independent analysis by
reviewing all available data to determine whether RTO and
NOX controls achieving 80-90% reduction are RACM for cement
kilns in the DFW area; we agree with the State that additional control
measures would not advance the attainment date.

G. Comments on the Failure-To-Attain Contingency Measures Plan

    Comment: Some commenters merely state that the contingency measures
are insufficient without providing any support. Others comment that the
four failure-to-attain contingency measures are insufficient because
they will not result in demonstrative, verifiable, and enforceable
emission reductions.
    Response: Some of the comments simply allege that the contingency
measures are insufficient and the commenters provide no support,
rationale or data for their claim. EPA explained why we believe the
contingency measures are sufficient in the proposed rule and the
commenters have not substantively questioned EPA's rationale.
Therefore, no further response is necessary.
    Other commenters claim that the contingency measures will not
result in demonstrative, verifiable and enforceable emission
reductions. EPA interpreted sections 172 and 182 of the Act in the
General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) to require States with moderate
or above ozone nonattainment areas to include contingency measures to
implement additional emission reductions of 3% of the adjusted base
year inventory in the year following the year in which the failure has
been identified. The state must specify the

type of contingency measures and the quantity of emissions reductions.
    Quantifiable contingency measures are ones that are demonstrative
and verifiable. An EPA-approved methodology can be used to calculate
projected emissions reductions. The three VOC control measures in the
contingency plan (Offset Lithographic Printing; Degassing or Cleaning
of Stationary, Marine, and Transport Vessels; and Petroleum Dry
Cleaning) rely upon long-established methodologies for calculation of
their projected emissions reductions. See EPA's ``Introduction to Area
Source Emission Inventory Development'' (Emission Inventory Improvement
Program (EIIP), Volume III, January 2001). The EIIP was developed to
estimate the effect of controls and acknowledges that regulatory
programs are less than 100 percent effective for most source categories
in most areas of the country. Specifically, Chapter 4 of the EIIP
document describes the methodology for calculating an emission estimate
for an area source with regulations in place that affect any of the
individual sources within the source category using three factors:
control efficiency, rule effectiveness, and rule penetration. These
factors are used to develop more accurate emissions estimates and are
defined as follows:
    (a) Control efficiency (CE) is the emission reduction efficiency,
and is a percentage value representing the amount of a source
category's emissions that are controlled. These numbers are often
obtained from EPA's Control Technique Guidance documents.
    (b) Rule effectiveness (RE) is an adjustment to account for
failures and uncertainties that affect the actual performance of the
control. A default value of 0.80 is recommended unless better
information is available for a particular source category.
    (c) Rule penetration (RP) is the percentage of the area source
category that is covered by the applicable regulation or is expected to
be complying with the regulation. The RP is calculated by taking the
uncontrolled emissions covered by regulation and dividing by the total
uncontrolled emissions. Default values are not feasible for RP because
it is highly category- and location-dependent.
    These three factors are multiplied together to estimate the
Controlled Area source Emissions (CAE).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ If an area source is controlled, emissions are calculated
by the following equation: CAE = UAE [1 - (CE) (RP) (RE)], where UAE
= Uncontrolled Area Emissions estimate, and each of the other terms
is defined above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the DFW contingency measures plan, Texas estimated emissions
for each source category using EPA's EIIP methodology. For Offset
Lithographic Printing, the contingency measures plan applies to those
sources with emissions below 50 tpy; for Degassing or Cleaning of
Stationary, Marine, and Transport Vessels, the plan covers sources
which are currently exempt from the State's VOC rules for degassing,
including tanks smaller than 1 million gallons; and for Petroleum Dry
Cleaning, the plan applies to sources using less than 2,000 gallons of
solvent per year. These three contingency measures address sources that
have emissions lower than the exemptions in the State's existing VOC
RACT rules approved today as meeting RACT for both the standards.
    The fourth measure relied on is fleet turnover. Fleet turnover
occurs each year--the model year composition of the local motor vehicle
fleet changes as new vehicles are purchased and enter the fleet and old
vehicles are scrapped. This results in a decrease in fleet average
NOX and VOC emissions each year as older model year
vehicles, certified to less stringent emission standards, leave the
fleet and are replaced by newer vehicles certified to more stringent
standards. The emission impacts of fleet turnover are calculated using
EPA's MOBILE6.2 emission factor model. MOBILE6.2 calculates emission
factors based on the standards that were in effect in each of the model
years in the fleet and the relative fraction of each model year
expected in the fleet in a specific calendar year. The relative
fraction of each model year in the fleet is based on the local age
distribution of the vehicle fleet, which is a specific input in
MOBILE6.2 supplied by the state or local agency running the model,
which in this SIP revision is the NCTCOG.
    EPA requires that states use MOBILE6.2 to estimate motor vehicle
emissions in a SIP or conformity determination. EPA also specifies in
guidance what types of local inputs are appropriate for use in a SIP.
For example, EPA does not allow a state or local agency to project that
the motor vehicle fleet will be newer in the future than it currently
is. In SIPs, EPA accepts projections of future emissions, including the
benefits of fleet turnover, calculated using MOBILE6.2 using inputs
that conform to our guidance. The NCTCOG used the State vehicle
registration database from July 2005; this conforms to EPA's guidance,
is the latest available information and provides a more accurate
estimation of future emissions levels.
    The three VOC measures have been approved into the SIP and
therefore are enforceable by the EPA, the State and the public. The
fleet turnover measure is a Federal rule and as such is enforceable by
the EPA, the State and the public. Today's action makes the fleet
turnover measure's projected SIP credits enforceable by the EPA and the
public. The measures are surplus because they are not substitutes for
mandatory, required emissions reductions and they are not being counted
in any other control strategy.\15\ Finally, the measures are considered
permanent because they continue for as long as the period in which they
are used in the failure-to-attain contingency measures plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EPA approved these three Chapter 115 measures into the DFW
1-hour ozone SIP as part of the failure-to-attain contingency
measures plan. EPA never triggered them to be implemented upon a
finding of failure to attain the 1-hour standard. They remain in the
DFW SIP and now the State is relying upon them as part of the 8-hour
ozone failure-to-attain contingency measures plan. They are not
required to meet the VOC RACT requirement for either standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter states that EPA may not approve contingency
measures into the SIP that are already scheduled for implementation and
are mandatory federal measures. Moreover, the attainment demonstration
SIP relies upon these projected emissions reductions from fleet
turnover. The emissions factors models used for projecting the future
year's controlled emissions inventory include the improved tailpipe
emission. The emissions reductions will occur passively and are not
available ``to be undertaken'' in the likely event of a failure to
attain. Accepting these as contingency measures violates the letter of
the Act and the intended function of contingency measures--to step in
when the SIP's primary control strategy fails. Texas may not rely on
tailpipe emissions reductions as a contingency measure.
    Response: EPA's position is that the Act allows mandatory federal
measures that are already scheduled for implementation to be used as
contingency measures, as long as their emission reductions are beyond
those needed for attainment or to meet reasonable further progress. The
following are some of EPA's actions on the 1-hour ozone SIPs, approving
the use of mandatory federal measures as part of the contingency
measures plan: 62 FR 15844, (April 3, 1997); 62 FR 66279, (December 18,
1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001); 66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634, (January 3,
2001). In the preambles for the proposed and final Phase 2 Rule, we
state that Federal

measures that result in additional emission reductions beyond those
needed for attainment or ROP in an area could serve as contingency
measures for a failure to attain or meet the ROP requirements. (See
Phase 2 Rule, proposed in 68 FR 32802 at 32837 (June 2, 2003), and
final in 70 FR 71612 at 71651 (November 29, 2005)). Therefore, the
State's inclusion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control programs (FMVCP)
occurring after the 2009 ozone season, is acceptable.
    The Federal measure in the failure-to-attain contingency measures
plan is the projected emissions reductions from the FMVCP occurring
after the 2009 ozone season, in addition to the already-identified VOC
rules described above. The FMVCP requires controls on both on- and non-
road motor vehicles, providing emissions reductions as the fleet is
replaced with newer vehicles (turns over). Only the emissions
reductions projected to occur after 2009 from the FMVCP are relied upon
to meet the 3% of the emissions in the adjusted 1999 base year
emissions inventory.
    The modeling relies upon emissions reductions from the FMVCP that
will become effective during the modeling period from 1999 to 2009. EPA
disagrees that the attainment demonstration SIP relies upon the
projected emissions reductions from fleet turnover occurring after
2009. Said another way, we disagree that the reductions from fleet
turnover used as contingency measures were relied upon in the
demonstration that the area would attain by 2009.

H. Comments on the Attainment Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs)

    Comment: Commenters state that the MVEBs are flawed and are flawed
for multiple reasons. In addition, in the absence of a competent
attainment demonstration, the MVEBs are not approvable or adequate.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that the MVEBs are
flawed. The Commenters provided no data or rationale for their
comments. This statement, without any further explanation does not give
EPA any guidance on the alleged inadequacy nor how the commenter would
have EPA improve upon it. EPA, however, refers the Commenters to our
detailed response, below.
    As discussed elsewhere, we believe that the plan provides for
attainment of the ozone standard. For further explanation of how the
attainment demonstration SIP provides for attainment, please see our
responses in Section V-D above. Furthermore, we believe the budgets in
the plan are consistent with the attainment plan and therefore should
be approved.
    Further, the budgets in the SIP were established consistent with
the process in 40 CFR 93.118(e). Under 40 CFR 93.118, budgets cannot be
used for conformity until EPA has either found the budgets ``adequate''
or approved the SIP in which they are contained. On June 28, 2007, the
availability of the budgets was posted on EPA's Web site for public
comment. The comment period closed on July 30, 2007, and we received no
comments. On March 21, 2008, we published a Notice of Adequacy
Determination for the attainment MVEBs (73 FR 15152) where we announced
that we found the 2009 attainment MVEBs ``adequate.'' In that notice we
stated that the attainment MVEBs must be used in future DFW
transportation conformity determinations.

I. Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs (VMEP)

    Comment: Commenters state that the Transportation Emission
Reduction Measure (TERM) projects are inadequate.
    Response: The comment letter provides no support, rationale or data
for its claim that the TERM projects are inadequate. EPA explained its
rationale for proposing approval of the VMEP program in the proposed
rule and the commenter fails to identify any defect in EPA's analysis.
Therefore, no further response is required.
    Comment: A commenter states that EPA proposes to accept a series of
capacity-increasing traffic projects as substitute control measures in
the event that the VMEP NOX emissions are not achieved. The
commenter states that the proposed TERMs involve roadway and highway
capacity expansion to allow higher vehicle speeds in congested areas.
The commenter further states that higher vehicle speeds result in
increased NOX emissions and are counter productive to the
stated purpose of supplying emissions reductions when VMEP reductions
fail, and EPA should reject the TERM control measures' inclusion into
the SIP.
    Response: EPA finds that the State, through the North Central Texas
Council of Governments (NCTCOG), has committed to and is responsible
for emissions reductions measures that are permanent, quantifiable,
surplus, adequately supported, consistent, enforceable and in
accordance with the Act and EPA guidance. The state, through the
NCTCOG, also commits to monitor, assess, report, and, in the event that
the NOX reductions are not achieved, remedy any shortfall in
emissions reductions.
    It should be noted that EPA is not approving any TERMs, which would
serve as the remedy to a shortfall of the VMEP at this time. The types
of TERMs the state may use in the case of a shortfall are traffic
signal improvements, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and/or
freeway and/or arterial bottleneck removal. Because the State did not
specifically identify or commit to using these additional measures, we
did not review them for approvability. In the event of a shortfall, EPA
will review the additional measures provided by the State for inclusion
into the SIP. If EPA finds, at that time, that the measures would cause
an increase in NOX emissions, we would not find them
suitable for use to make up for an emissions reduction shortfall.
    Finally, the State must account for any such shortfall either by
modifying implementation of the existing program to address the
shortfall, adopting new measures, or revising the VMEP's emissions
credits to reflect actual emissions reductions achieved, provided
overall SIP commitments are met.\16\ Additions to the VMEP and changes
to the VMEP credit in an effort to remedy any shortfall would be made
in the form of a SIP revision. If TCMs are used to remedy the
shortfall, a SIP revision may not be necessary.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation, dated October 24, 1997, entitled ``Guidance on
Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in
State Implementation Plans (SIPs).''
    \17\ The state may submit TCMs to EPA under CAA 176(c)(8). The
provision states that TCMs that are specified in an approved
implementation plan may be replaced in the plan with alternate TCMs
if the substitute measures achieve equivalent or greater emissions
reductions than the TCM to be replaced. The provision also allows
new TCMs to be added to an approved SIP. In order to substitute TCMs
the CAA requires that the substitute TCM provide equivalent
emissions reductions as the TCM that is being replaced in the
approved SIP. The CAA also requires that, if the time for
implementing the substitute TCM has not passed, the substitute
measures must be implemented in accordance with a schedule that is
consistent with the schedule that provided for the control measures
in the implementation plan. Substitute and additional TCMs must be
accompanied by evidence of adequate personnel and funding and
authority under state/local law to implement, monitor and enforce
the control measure; the measures must be developed in a
collaborative process that includes participation by representatives
of all affected jurisdictions, state agency and state/local
transportation agencies and consultation with the EPA; there must be
reasonable public notice and opportunity to comment; and the
metropolitan planning organization, State air pollution control
agency and the EPA concur with the equivalency of the substitute
TCMs and on the additional TCM. Concurrence by the above agencies is
required by the CAA and once the substitute is adopted, the TCM
becomes, by operation of law, a part of the SIP and federally
enforceable. It should be noted that consultation with the EPA
regional offices serves to fulfill the requirement for consultation
with the EPA Administrator and concurrence on both TCM substitutions
and additions has been delegated to the EPA Regional Administrators.
(Delegation of Authority 7-158: Transportation Control Measure
Substitutions and Additions).

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

VI. Final Action

    EPA is conditionally approving the DFW 1997 8-hour ozone attainment
demonstration SIP and its 2009 attainment MVEBs, RACM determination,
and failure-to-attain contingency measures plan, submitted by the State
of Texas on May 30, 2007 and November 7, 2008, as supplemented on April
23, 2008. EPA is fully approving two local control measures relied upon
in the attainment demonstration, the VMEP and TCMs. We are also fully
approving the DFW area SIP as meeting the RACT requirement for VOCs for
the 1-hour ozone standard and the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. These
revisions meet the requirements of the Act and EPA's regulations, and
are consistent with EPA's guidance and policy. We are taking this
action pursuant to section 110 and part D of the Act and EPA's
regulations.

VII. 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 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 16, 2009. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 17, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Section 52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e) entitled ``EPA
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the
Texas SIP'' is amended by adding four new entries at the end.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
* * * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
     Name of SIP  provision          geographic or     State submittal/    EPA approval date       Comments
                                  nonattainment area    effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Dallas-Fort Worth 1997 8-hour     Collin, Dallas,     May 23, 2007,       January 14, 2009    Conditional
 ozone Attainment Demonstration    Denton, Ellis,      November 7, 2008.   [Insert FR page     Approval.
 SIP and its 2009 attainment       Johnson, Kaufman,                       number where
 MVEBs, RACM demonstration, and    Parker, Rockwall                        document begins].
 Failure-to-Attain Contingency     and Tarrant
 Measures Plan.                    Counties, TX.
Transportation Control Measures.  Collin, Dallas,     May 23, 2007......  January 14, 2009
                                   Denton, Ellis,                          [Insert FR page
                                   Johnson, Kaufman,                       number where
                                   Parker, Rockwall                        document begins].
                                   and Tarrant
                                   Counties, TX.
VMEP............................  Collin, Dallas,     May 23, 2007......  January 14, 2009
                                   Denton, Ellis,                          [Insert FR page
                                   Johnson, Kaufman,                       number where
                                   Parker, Rockwall                        document begins].
                                   and Tarrant
                                   Counties, TX.
VOC RACT finding for the 1-hour   Collin, Dallas,     May 23, 2007......  January 14, 2009
 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 8-hour   Denton, Ellis,                          [Insert FR page
 ozone NAAQS.                      Johnson, Kaufman,                       number where
                                   Parker, Rockwall                        document begins].
                                   and Tarrant
                                   Counties, TX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E9-118 Filed 1-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16266-16267]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05358]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2023-N-0008]

Request for Nominations From Industry Organizations Interested in
Participating in the Selection Process for Nonvoting Industry
Representatives and Request for Nominations for Nonvoting Industry
Representatives on the Blood Products Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is requesting
that any industry organizations interested in participating in the
selection of a nonvoting industry representative to serve on the Blood
Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) for the Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting
nominations for a nonvoting industry representative(s) to serve on the
BPAC. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an
organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative.
Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies effective with this
notice.

DATES: Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests must send a letter stating that interest to FDA by April 17,
2023 (see sections I and II of this document for further details).
Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be
sent to FDA by April 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: All statements of interest from industry organizations
interested in participating in the selection process of nonvoting
industry representative nominations should be sent via email to
Christina Vert (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). All nominations
for nonvoting industry representatives must be submitted electronically
by accessing the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal
at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm. Information about becoming a member of an FDA advisory
committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's website at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Vert or Marie DeGregorio,
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 1244, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Agency intends to add a nonvoting
industry representative(s) to the following advisory committee:

I. Blood Products Advisory Committee

    BPAC reviews and evaluates available data concerning the safety,
effectiveness, and appropriate use of blood products derived from blood
and serum or biotechnology that are

intended for use in the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of human
diseases, and, as required, any other product for which FDA has
regulatory responsibility. BPAC also advises the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs (the Commissioner) of its findings regarding screening and
testing (to determine eligibility) of donors and labeling of the
products, on clinical and laboratory studies involving such products,
on the affirmation or revocation of biological products licenses, and
on the quality and relevance of FDA's research program that provides
the scientific support for regulating these agents.
    BPAC will function at times as a medical device panel under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) Medical Device
Amendments of 1976. As such, BPAC recommends classification of devices
subject to its review into regulatory categories, recommends the
assignment of a priority for the application of regulatory requirements
for devices classified in the standards or premarket approval category,
advises on formulation of product development protocols and reviews
premarket approval applications for those devices to recommend changes
in classification as appropriate, recommends exemption of certain
devices from the application of portions of the FD&C Act, advises on
the necessity to ban a device, and responds to requests from the Agency
to review and make recommendations on specific issues or problems
concerning the safety and effectiveness of devices.

II. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the
selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry
interests should send a letter via email stating that interest to the
FDA contact (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of
publication of this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30
days, FDA will send a notification to each organization that has
expressed an interest, attaching a complete list of all such
organizations; and a list of all nominees along with their current
r[eacute]sum[eacute]s. The letter will also state that it is the
responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one
another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of
the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent industry
interests for the committee. The interested organizations are not bound
by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no
individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the
nonvoting member to represent industry interests.

III. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate, and/or an organization may nominate
one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry
representative. Nomination must include a current, complete
r[eacute]sum[eacute] or curriculum vitae for each nominee, including
current business address and telephone number, email address if
available, and a signed copy of the Acknowledgement and Consent form
available at the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal
(see ADDRESSES) within 30 days of publication of this document (see
DATES). Nominations must also specify the advisory committee for which
the nominee is recommended. Nominations must also acknowledge that the
nominee is aware of the nomination unless self-nominated. FDA will
forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in
participating in the selection process for the committee. Persons who
nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not
participate in the selection process.
    FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all
racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities
on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of
appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.
    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: March 13, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-05358 Filed 3-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: January 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 216]
[DOCID:fr02ja08-88]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 206(4)-3; SEC File No. 270-218; OMB Control No. 3235-0242.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 206(4)-3 (17 CFR 275.206(4)-3), which is entitled ``Cash
Payments for Client Solicitations,'' provides restrictions on cash
payments for client solicitations. The rule requires that an adviser
pay all solicitors' fees pursuant to a written agreement. When an
adviser will provide only impersonal advisory services to the
prospective client, the rule imposes no disclosure requirements. When
the solicitor is affiliated with the adviser and the adviser will
provide individualized services, the solicitor must, at the time of the
solicitation, indicate to prospective clients that he is affiliated
with the adviser. When the solicitor is not affiliated with the adviser
and the adviser will provide individualized services, the solicitor
must, at the time of the solicitation, provide the prospective client
with a copy of the adviser's brochure and a disclosure document
containing information specified in rule 206(4)-3. The information rule
206(4)-3 requires is necessary to inform advisory clients about the
nature of the solicitor's financial interest in the recommendation so
they may consider the solicitor's potential bias, and to protect
investors against solicitation activities being carried out in a manner
inconsistent with the adviser's fiduciary duty to clients. Rule 206(4)-
3 is applicable to all Commission registered investment advisers. The
Commission believes that approximately 2,163 of these advisers have
cash referral fee arrangements. The rule requires approximately 7.04
burden hours per year per adviser and results in a total of
approximately 15,228 total burden hours (7.04 x 2,163) for all
advisers.
    The disclosure requirements of rule 206(4)-3 do not require
recordkeeping or record retention. The collections of information
requirements under the rules are mandatory. Information subject to the
disclosure requirements of rule 206(4)-3 is not submitted to the
Commission. Accordingly, the disclosures pursuant to the rule are not
kept confidential. 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 control number.
    Please direct general comments regarding the above information to
the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information

Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days

of this notice.

    Dated: December 20, 2007.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-25434 Filed 12-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64820-64822]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27487]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

DATE AND TIME: December 20, 2018, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda.
    * Note--Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further
notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed online at the
Commission's website at http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ using the
eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

                                          1050th Meeting--Open Meeting
                                         [December 20, 2018, 10:00 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Item No.                       Docket No.                                  Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1........................  AD19-1-000.......................  Agency Administrative Matters.
A-2........................  AD19-2-000.......................  Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and
                                                                 Market Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    ELECTRIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1........................  RM19-2-000.......................  Refinements to Horizontal Market Power Analysis
                                                                 for Sellers in Certain Regional Transmission
                                                                 Organization and Independent System Operator
                                                                 Markets.
E-2........................  ER18-1952-001, ER18-1952-002,      Gulf Power Company.
                              ER18-1952-003.
E-3........................  EC18-117-000.....................  NextEra Energy, Inc.; 700 Universe, LLC.; Gulf
                                                                 Power Company.
E-4........................  EL18-155-000.....................  Ameren Illinois Company.
                             EL18-156-000.....................  Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois.
                             EL18-161-000.....................  Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota
                                                                 corporation.
                             EL18-162-000.....................  Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin
                                                                 corporation.
                             ER18-2322-000....................  Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-5........................  EL18-163-000.....................  Public Service Company of Colorado.
                             EL18-166-000.....................  Southwestern Public Service Company.
                             ER18-2319-000....................  Public Service Company of Colorado.
E-6........................  EL18-138-000.....................  Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.;
                                                                 ALLETE, Inc.; Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.;
                                                                 Northern Indiana Public Service Company; Otter
                                                                 Tail Power Company; Southern Indiana Gas &
                                                                 Electric Company.
                             ER18-1739-000....................  Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-7........................  EL18-159-000.....................  International Transmission Company.
                             EL18-160-000.....................  ITC Midwest, LLC.
                             ER18-2323-000....................  Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
                             EL19-16-000......................  Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
E-8........................  EL18-157-000.....................  American Transmission Company, LLC.
E-9........................  EL18-165-000.....................  TransCanyon DCR, LLC.
E-10.......................  EL18-167-000.....................  Virginia Electric and Power Company.
E-11.......................  EL18-158-000.....................  GridLiance West Transco LLC.
E-12.......................  EL18-164-000.....................  Southern California Edison Company.
E-13.......................  ER19-166-000.....................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-14.......................  ER18-2340-001....................  Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-15.......................  ER19-169-000.....................  ISO New England Inc. and New England Power Pool
                                                                 Participants Committee.
E-16.......................  ER18-1953-000, ER18-1953-001.....  Gulf Power Company.
E-17.......................  ER17-2154-002....................  Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
E-18.......................  ER17-802-002, EL19-24-000, ER17-   Exelon Generation Company, LLC.
                              802-001 (consolidated).
E-19.......................  ER18-2377-000....................  Southwestern Public Service Company.
E-20.......................  OMITTED
E-21.......................  EL18-188-000.....................  NRG Curtailment Solutions, Inc. v. New York
                                                                 Independent System Operator, Inc.
E-22.......................  EL18-194-000.....................  Nebraska Public Power District v. Tri-State
                                                                 Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
                                                                 and Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-23.......................  EL18-197-000.....................  City of Oakland, California v. Pacific Gas and
                                                                 Electric Company.
E-24.......................  EL18-176-000.....................  City of Falmouth, Kentucky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       GAS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1........................  RP19-238-000, RP19-238-001.......  Southwest Gas Transmission Company, A Limited
                                                                 Partnership.
G-2........................  RP19-240-000.....................  WestGas Interstate, Inc.
G-3........................  RP19-266-000, RP19-267-000.......  Southeast Supply Header, LLC.
G-4........................  RP19-307-000.....................  Black Hills Utility Holdings, Inc.; Black Hills
                                                                 Service Company, LLC.
G-5........................  RP17-811-003, RP17-811-004, RP18-  Peregrine Oil & Gas II, LLC v. Texas Eastern
                              271-001, RP18-271-002              Transmission, LP.
                              (consolidated).

                                                      HYDRO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1........................  RM18-14-000......................  Elimination of Form 80 and Revision of
                                                                 Regulations on Recreational Opportunities and
                                                                 Development at Licensed Hydropower Projects.
H-2........................  DI18-1-001.......................  Covington Mountain Hydro, LLC.
H-3........................  P-14329-005......................  Columbia Basin Hydropower.
H-4........................  P-2744-046.......................  North East Wisconsin Hydro, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  CERTIFICATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1........................  CP18-532-000.....................  Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; SOCCO, Inc.; Sumas
                                                                 Pipeline Company; Sumas Dry Kilns, Inc.
C-2........................  CP19-20-000......................  Golden Pass LNG Terminal LLC and Golden Pass
                                                                 Products LLC.
C-3........................  CP18-45-000......................  Dominion Energy Transmission, Inc.
C-4........................  CP15-550-000.....................  Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC.
                             CP15-551-000, CP15-551-001.......  TransCameron Pipeline, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued: December 13, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/. Anyone with internet access who desires to
view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of
Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain
a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical
support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via
television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have
any questions, visit http://ferc.capitolconnection.org/ or contact
Shirley Al-Jarani at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2018-27487 Filed 12-14-18; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P