[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43889-43892]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-29]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 2

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0924; FRL-9179-4]
RIN 2060-AQ04

Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required Under
the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Supplemental proposal.

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

SUMMARY: This action supplements EPA's July 7, 2010 ``Proposed
Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required under the Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Amendment to Special Rules
Governing Certain Information Obtained under the Clean Air Act''. In
this action, EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for the
data elements proposed to be added or revised in the ``Proposed
Rulemaking: Revision of Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Reporting
of Greenhouse Gases Rule,'' also signed today. This action addresses
only the confidentiality of the new and revised data elements proposed
in the concurrent notice.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 26,
2010, or by September 10, 2010 if a public hearing is held (see below).
    Public Hearing. EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing
unless requested. To request a hearing, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by August 3,
2010. Upon such request, EPA will hold the hearing on August 11, 2010
in the Washington, DC area starting at 9 a.m., local time. EPA will
provide further information about the hearing on its Web page if a
hearing is requested.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0924, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0924, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0924. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information, contact the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at: http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/ghgrule_contactus.htm. Alternatively, contact
Carole Cook at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional Information on Submitting
Comments: To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the
copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code
6207-J, Washington, DC 20460, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Regulated Entities. This supplemental action affects entities
required to submit annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reports under 40 CFR
Part 98. The Administrator determined that Part 98 is subject to the
provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section
307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply to ``such
other actions as the Administrator may determine''). The Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and this action affect fuel and chemicals
suppliers, and direct emitters of GHGs. Affected categories and
entities include those listed in Table 1 of the preamble to the
``Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required under the
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Amendment to
Special Rules Governing Certain Information Obtained under the Clean
Air Act'' (75 FR 39094).
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GHG greenhouse gas
U.S. United States

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Background
    B. Proposed Changes to the Part 98 Reporting Requirements
    C. Proposed Data Categories and Confidentiality Determinations
for the Proposed New and Revised Data Elements
    D. Request for Comments
II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. Background

    Under Part 98 of the final Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
(74 FR 56259, October 30, 2009, and subsequent amendments), hereinafter
referred to as Part 98, EPA will collect data from facilities that
directly emit GHGs from their processes or stationary fuel combustion
sources (``direct emitters'') as well as upstream suppliers of fuels
and industrial GHGs (``suppliers'').
    Following the publication of the proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting
Rule on April 10, 2009 (74 FR 16448), EPA received comments both
supporting and opposing the public release of data collected under Part
98. Industry commenters generally expressed concern that EPA would
disclose reported data that industry considers trade secrets or
confidential business information, hereinafter collectively referred to
as CBI. Other commenters favored disclosure of information, and some
argued that all of the information gathered under Part 98 should be
``emission data'' and hence not entitled to confidential treatment.
    In response to these comments, EPA initiated a rulemaking to
establish the confidentiality status of Part 98 data elements and
procedures for handling Part 98 data. On July 7, 2010, EPA published
the ``Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required under
the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Amendment to
Special Rules Governing Certain Information Obtained under the Clean
Air Act'' (75 FR 39094), herinafter referred to as the July 7, 2010
confidentiality proposal.
    Concurrent to today's action, EPA signed the ``Proposed Rulemaking:
Revision of Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases Rule'' herinafter referred to as the Part 98 amendment proposal.
The Part 98 Amendments proposal, if finalized, would result in changes
to certain part 98 data elements. Because the July 7, 2010
confidentiality proposal was issued before the Part 98 amendment
proposal, it did not address the revised and new data elements in the
amendments proposal. This action contains EPA's proposed
confidentiality determination for the new and revised data elements
included in the Part 98 amendment proposal.

B. Proposed Changes to the Part 98 Reporting Requirements

    As mentioned above, EPA proposed amendments to Part 98 that, if
finalized, would make clarifying and technical changes to reporting
requirements. Proposed revisions include allowing greater flexibility
or simplified calculation methods for certain sources, amending data
reporting requirements and definitions, and providing technical
corrections, clarifying and other amendments. The proposed amendments
include addition of new reporting requirements and deletion of certain
existing reporting requirements.
    The proposed amendments include changes to the data elements
required by 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and the following Part 98
subparts promulgated in 2009:
     Subpart C, General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources;
     Subpart D, Electricity Generation;
     Subpart F, Aluminum Production;
     Subpart G, Ammonia Manufacturing;
     Subpart V, Nitric Acid Production;
     Subpart X, Petrochemical Production;
     Subpart Y, Petrochemical Production;
     Subpart OO, Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases; and
     Subpart PP, Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide.
    After consideration of public comment, EPA intends to issue a final
action.

C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for the Proposed New and
Revised Data Elements

    In the July 7, 2010 confidentiality proposal, EPA described the
methodology and rationale for the proposed confidentiality
determinations. To make the proposed determinations, EPA first grouped
the Part 98 data elements into 22 data categories (11 direct emitter
data categories and 11 supplier data categories) and then proposed
confidentiality determinations on a category basis. Exceptions to this
approach were made for three of the supplier data categories, where
confidentiality determinations were made for individual data elements
within the category rather than by category. For the list of all 22
data categories and brief descriptions of the data elements within each
category, please see Section II.C (for direct emitter data categories)
and Section II.D (for supplier data categories) of the July 7, 2010
confidentiality proposal.
    As discussed in Section I.B of today's supplemental proposal, in
the Part 98 amendment proposal, EPA proposed amending part 98 to add,
delete and revise certain data elements. Today's action contains EPA's
proposed confidentiality determination for the proposed new and revised
data elements.
    Consistent with the approach set forth in the July 7, 2010
confidentiality proposal, each new or revised data element is assigned
to one of the 22 data categories based on the type and characteristics
of the data element. Because the scopes of the existing data categories
are sufficient to cover the proposed new data elements, no new data
category is proposed. For a list of the new and revised data elements
addressed in the Part 98 amendments proposal and their assigned data
categories, please see Memorandum ``Data Category Assignments for the
Proposed Revisions to the Part 98 Reporting Requirements'' in Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0924 and on the Web site (http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/CBI.html.)
    As mentioned above, EPA proposed confidentiality determinations for
part 98 data on a category basis except for three supplier categories,
where confidentiality determinations were made for individual data
elements within the category rather than by category. These three
supplier data categories are: ``Greenhouse Gases Reported'',
``Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition'', and ``Unit/
Process Operating Characteristics''. Except for data elements assigned
to the three supplier data categories listed above, EPA proposes in
this supplemental notice to apply the confidentiality determination
(and supporting rationales) for the data category to which the proposed
new or revised data element is assigned.
    For each revised data element, EPA assessed whether the proposed
revisions to the data element changed the existing data category
assignment. The proposed changes to existing data elements were
generally minor changes to correct references, clarify the reporting
requirement, or simplify reporting. None of the proposed revisions to
the existing data elements affect the existing category assignments for
these data elements.
    The proposed amendments to part 98 would add two new data elements
to the ``Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition'' supplier
data category and three new data elements to the ``Unit/Process
Operating Characteristics'' supplier data category. As previously
mentioned, confidentiality determinations were proposed for individual
data elements within these categories rather than on a category basis.
Similarly, EPA evaluated individually the confidentiality status of the
proposed new data elements assigned to these two data categories.

    In the July 7, 2010 confidentiality proposal, EPA proposed to
determine that none of the Part 98 supplier data qualify as ``emission
data'' as that term is defined at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(i).\1\ EPA then
proposed CBI determinations for supplier data by considering the
confidentiality determination criteria at 40 CFR 2.208. In particular,
EPA focused on whether release of the data is likely to cause
substantial harm to the business's competitive position. See 40 CFR
2.208(e)(1). Consistent with this approach, EPA proposes the following
CBI determinations for the proposed new supplier data elements in the
``Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition'' and ``Unit/Process
Operating Characteristics'' supplier data categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 114(c) of the CAA requires that ``emission data''
shall be publicly available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One new data element added to the ``Production/Throughput
Quantities and Composition'' data category requires facilities that
produce fluorinated GHGs to report the concentration of each
fluorinated GHG contained in their products. These data would be
reported in a one-time report submitted by fluorinated GHG production
facilities by March 31, 2011. The other new data element assigned to
this data category would require fluorinated GHG production facilities
to submit a revised report of the concentrations of fluorinated GHGs
when changes are made to the compositions of their products. EPA
proposes that these data elements be considered CBI. Like the other
product specific data elements included in this data category in the
July 7, 2010 confidentiality proposal, these two data elements would
provide sensitive information on product composition that is not
already publicly available and would likely harm the competitive
position of fluorinated GHG producers. For more detailed rationales in
support of our proposed CBI determination for these two new data
elements, please see Section II.D.3 of the July 7, 2010 confidentiality
proposal, which discusses the ways in which product-specific production
quantities and product composition data could be used by competitors of
a reporting facility to gain insights and develop market strategies
that would harm the reporter's competitive position.
    The three new data elements added to the data category for ``Unit/
Process Operating Characteristics'' consist of the following data
elements:
     The location of the mass flow meter in the process chain
in relation to the points of CO2 stream capture,
dehydration, compression, and other processing (40 CFR part 98, subpart
PP).
     The location of the volumetric flow meter in the process
chain in relation to the points of CO2 stream capture,
dehydration, compression, and other processing (40 CFR part 98, subpart
PP).
     Date on which changes were made to fluorinated GHG
concentrations in a product or the date on which production of a new
product commenced (40 CFR part 98, subpart OO).
    The location of flow meters does not provide information on the
design or operation of a facility's production processes or the design
or operation of any CO2 compression, dehydration, or other
purification process that may be present at the facility. Facilities
are not required to provide detailed and potentially sensitive
information about their facilities, such as descriptions or diagrams of
their processes. Rather reporters are only required to report limited
information on the location of a flow meter in terms of its position
relative to other processes, such as the CO2 stream capture,
dehydration, compression, and other processing. Similarly, the date on
which manufacture of a new product commenced or changes were made to
the composition of a fluorinated GHG product does not disclose the
actual composition of the product, the raw materials used to make the
product, the method of manufacture, or the efficiency of the
manufacturing process. The manufacture of a new product and changes to
existing product lines is often publicly available through company
marking materials and other sources (e.g., publication or revisions to
Material Safety Data Sheets). Since the disclosure of these data
elements is unlikely to harm the competitive position of the reporter,
we propose these three data elements would not be entitled to
confidential treatment.
    When finalized, the changes to the data elements may not be exactly
the same as those proposed in the Part 98 amendment proposal; however,
we expect that any revisions to data elements in the final amendment
would still logically fall into the same or another data category that
is addressed in the confidentiality proposal and would therefore be
covered by the confidentiality determination for that data category. If
the final amendments differ from those included in the Part 98
amendment proposal, EPA will address those changes in the final
confidentiality determination action.

D. Request for Comments

    This supplemental action provides affected businesses, other
stakeholders, and the general public an opportunity to provide comment
on the proposed confidentiality determinations for the proposed new and
revised data elements. For the proposed new and revised data elements,
we are soliciting comment on the issues raised in the July 7, 2010
confidentiality proposal as they apply to the new and revised data
elements addressed in the part 98 amendment proposal and this
supplemental notice. Specifically, we are soliciting comment on whether
the data category assignments for the proposed new and revised data
elements are reasonable and appropriate (i.e., whether the proposed new
and revised data elements are sufficiently similar to the other data
elements listed in their assigned data category or whether a different
data category would be more appropriate). We are also soliciting
comment on whether the proposed confidentiality determinations for
these data elements are appropriate, whether any specific circumstances
exist that would warrant different confidentiality determinations for
these data elements, and whether any unique circumstances exist where a
limited process would be appropriate to re-evaluate EPA's final
determinations for these data elements. For a list of the proposed new
and revised data elements and their assigned data categories, please
see the memorandum ``Data Category Assignments for the Proposed
Revisions to the Part 98 Reporting Requirements'' in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0924 and on the Web site (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
emissions/CBI.html.)
    We are also interested in receiving suggestions on appropriate
formats for publishing the proposed new and revised data elements (both
CBI and non-CBI data). For those new and revised data elements for
which we propose confidential treatment, we are soliciting suggestions
for the best methods of aggregating the data and comment on whether
publishing any of the new and revised data elements in ranges at the
facility-level would provide valuable information that aggregated data
may not convey.
    In today's notice we are soliciting comment only on the proposed
confidentiality determinations for the new and revised data elements
contained in the Part 98 amendment proposal. We are not soliciting
further comment on those data elements in the July 7, 2010
confidentiality proposal for

which no changes are proposed in the Part 98 amendment proposal.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The statutory and executive order reviews do not apply to this
notice because this notice does not propose any regulatory changes. For
a complete discussion of the statutory and executive order reviews as
they apply to the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 2, see the notice
``Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required under the
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Amendment to
Special Rules Governing Certain Information Obtained under the Clean
Air Act'' (75 FR 39094).

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 2

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 20, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-18229 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68750-68756]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28770]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257; FRL-9487-9]
 RIN 2040-ZA08

Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Pesticide General Permit for Point Source Discharges From the
Application of Pesticides

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final permit.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the NPDES general permit for point
source discharges from the application of pesticides to waters of the
United States, also referred to as the Pesticide General Permit (PGP).
A draft PGP was published on June 4, 2010 for public comment. 75 FR
31775. All ten EPA Regions today are issuing the final NPDES PGP, which
will be available in those areas where EPA is the NPDES permitting
authority. This action is in response to the Sixth Circuit Court's
ruling that vacated an EPA regulation that excluded discharges of
biological pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue from
the application of pesticides to, or over, including near waters of the
United States from the need to obtain an NPDES permit if the
application was done in accordance with other laws. EPA requested and
was granted a stay of the Court's mandate to provide time to draft and
implement the permit noticed today. The stay of the mandate expires on
October 31, 2011; after which, NPDES permits will be required for such
point source discharges to waters of the United States.

DATES: This action is effective on October 31, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this final
NPDES general permit, contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office
listed in Section I.F, or contact Jack Faulk, EPA Headquarters, Office
of Water, Office of Wastewater Management at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related
information?
    C. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this final permit?
II. Statutory and Regulatory History
    A. Clean Water Act
    B. NPDES Permits
    C. History of Pesticide Application Regulations Under FIFRA
    D. Court Decisions Leading to the CWA Regulation Concerning
Pesticide Applications
    E. 2006 Agency Rulemaking Excluding Discharges from Pesticide
Applications From NPDES Permitting
    F. Legal Challenges to the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule and
Resulting Court Decision
    G. Publication of the Draft NPDES Pesticide General Permit
III. Scope and Applicability of This NPDES Pesticide General Permit
    A. Geographic Coverage
    B. Categories of Facilities Covered
    C. Summary of Permit Terms and Requirements
IV. Economic Impacts of the Pesticide General Permit
V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be affected by this action if your application of
pesticides, under the use patterns in Section III.B., results in a
discharge to waters of the United States in one of the geographic areas
identified in Section III.A. Potentially affected entities, as
categorized in the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS), may include, but are not limited to:

         Table 1--Entities Potentially Regulated by This Permit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Examples of
           Category                   NAICS         potentially affected
                                                          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture parties--General    111 Crop           Producers of crops
 agricultural interests,         Production..       mainly for food and
 farmers/producers, forestry,                       fiber including
 and irrigation.                                    farms, orchards,
                                                    groves, greenhouses,
                                                    and nurseries that
                                                    have irrigation
                                                    ditches requiring
                                                    pest control.
                                113110 Timber      The operation of
                                 Tract Operations   timber tracts for
                                 113210 Forest      the purpose of
                                 Nurseries          selling standing
                                 Gathering of       timber. Growing
                                 Forest Products.   trees for
                                                    reforestation and/or
                                                    gathering forest
                                                    products, such as
                                                    gums, barks, balsam
                                                    needles, rhizomes,
                                                    fibers, Spanish
                                                    moss, ginseng, and
                                                    truffles.
                                221310 Water       Operating irrigation
                                 Supply for         systems.
                                 Irrigation.
Pesticide parties (includes     325320 Pesticide   Formulation and
 pesticide manufacturers,        and Other          preparation of
 other pesticide users/          Agricultural       agricultural pest
 interests, and consultants).    Chemical           control chemicals.
                                 Manufacturing.
Public health parties           923120             Government
 (includes mosquito or other     Administration     establishments
 vector control districts and    of Public Health   primarily engaged in
 commercial applicators that     Programs.          the planning,
 service these).                                    administration, and
                                                    coordination of
                                                    public health
                                                    programs and
                                                    services, including
                                                    environmental health
                                                    activities.
Resource management parties     924110             Government
 (includes State departments     Administration     establishments
 of fish and wildlife, State     of Air and Water   primarily engaged in
 departments of pesticide        Resource and       the administration,
 regulation, State               Solid Waste        regulation, and
 environmental agencies, and     Management         enforcement of air
 universities).                  Programs.          and water resource
                                                    programs; the
                                                    administration and
                                                    regulation of water
                                                    and air pollution
                                                    control and
                                                    prevention programs;
                                                    the administration
                                                    and regulation of
                                                    flood control
                                                    programs; the
                                                    administration and
                                                    regulation of
                                                    drainage development
                                                    and water resource
                                                    consumption
                                                    programs; and
                                                    coordination of
                                                    these activities at
                                                    intergovernmental
                                                    levels.

                                924120             Government
                                 Administration     establishments
                                 of Conservation    primarily engaged in
                                 Programs.          the administration,
                                                    regulation,
                                                    supervision and
                                                    control of land use,
                                                    including
                                                    recreational areas;
                                                    conservation and
                                                    preservation of
                                                    natural resources;
                                                    erosion control;
                                                    geological survey
                                                    program
                                                    administration;
                                                    weather forecasting
                                                    program
                                                    administration; and
                                                    the administration
                                                    and protection of
                                                    publicly and
                                                    privately owned
                                                    forest lands.
                                                    Government
                                                    establishments
                                                    responsible for
                                                    planning,
                                                    management,
                                                    regulation and
                                                    conservation of
                                                    game, fish, and
                                                    wildlife
                                                    populations,
                                                    including wildlife
                                                    management areas and
                                                    field stations; and
                                                    other administrative
                                                    matters relating to
                                                    the protection of
                                                    fish, game, and
                                                    wildlife are
                                                    included in this
                                                    industry.
Utility parties (includes       221 Utilities....  Provide electric
 utilities).                                        power, natural gas,
                                                    steam supply, water
                                                    supply, and sewage
                                                    removal through a
                                                    permanent
                                                    infrastructure of
                                                    lines, mains, and
                                                    pipes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0257. The official public
docket is the collection of materials that is available for public
viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Although
all documents in the docket are listed in an index, some information is
not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. EPA policy is that copyrighted material will
not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available
only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Publicly
available docket materials are available in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room, open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the United States government on-line source for
federal regulations at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Electronic versions of this final permit and fact sheet are
available on EPA's NPDES Web site at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may
use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov to view public comments,
access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket,
and to access those documents in the public docket that are available
electronically. For additional information about EPA's public docket,
visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the Docket Facility identified in Section
I.A.1.

C. Who are the EPA regional contacts for this final permit?

    For EPA Region 1, contact George Papadopoulos at USEPA Region 1, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912; or at tel.: (617)
918-1579; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 2, contact Maureen Krudner at USEPA Region 2, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; or tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 3, contact Peter Weber at USEPA Region 3, 1650 Arch
Street, Mail Code: 3WP41, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; or at tel.:
(215) 814-5749; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 4, contact Sam Sampath at USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, CA 30303-8960; or at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 5, contact Morris Beaton at USEPA Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code: WN16J, Chicago, IL 60604-3507; or at
tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 6, contact Jenelle Hill at USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Mail Code: 6WO, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; or at tel.:
(214) 665-9737 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 7, contact Kimberly Hill at USEPA Region 7, 901
North Fifth Street, Mail Code: XX, Kansas City, KS 66101; or at tel.:
(913) 551-7841 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 8, contact David Rise at USEPA Region 8, Montana
Operations Office, Federal Building, 10 West 15th Street, Suite 3200,
Mail Code: 8MO, Helena, MT 59626; or at tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 9, contact Pascal Mues, USEPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
Street, Mail Code: WTR-5, San Francisco, CA 94105; or at tel.: (415)
972-3768 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For EPA Region 10, contact Dirk Helder, USEPA Region 10 Idaho
Operations Office, 1435 North Orchard Street, Boise, ID 83706 or at
tel.:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
II. Statutory and Regulatory History

A. Clean Water Act

    Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that ``the
discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful'' unless the
discharge is in compliance with certain other sections of the Act. 33
U.S.C. 1311(a). The CWA defines ``discharge of a pollutant'' as ``(A)
any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point
source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the waters of the
contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other than a vessel
or other floating craft.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(12). A ``point source'' is
any ``discernible, confined and discrete conveyance'' but does not
include ``agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from
irrigated agriculture.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(14).
    The term ``pollutant'' includes, among other things, ``garbage* * *
chemical wastes, biological materials * * * and industrial, municipal,
and agricultural waste discharged into water.'' 33 U.S.C. 1362(6).
    One way a person may discharge a pollutant without violating the
section

301 prohibition is by obtaining authorization to discharge (referred to
herein as ``coverage'') under a section 402 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (33 U.S.C. 1342). Under
section 402(a), EPA may ``issue a permit for the discharge of any
pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section
1311(a)'' upon certain conditions required by the Act.

B. NPDES Permits

    An NPDES permit authorizes the discharge of a specified amount of a
pollutant or pollutants into a receiving water under certain
conditions. The NPDES program relies on two types of permits:
Individual and general. An individual permit is a permit specifically
tailored for an individual discharger. Upon receiving the appropriate
permit application(s), the permitting authority, i.e., EPA or a state
or territory, develops a draft individual permit for public comment for
that particular discharger based on the information contained in the
permit application (e.g., type of activity, nature of discharge,
receiving water quality). Following consideration of public comments, a
final individual permit is then issued to the discharger for a specific
time period (not to exceed 5 years) with a provision for reapplying for
further permit coverage prior to the expiration date.
    In contrast, a general permit covers multiple facilities/sites/
activities within a specific category for a specific period of time
(not to exceed 5 years). For general permits, EPA, or a state
authorized to administer the NPDES program, develops and issues the
general permit with dischargers then obtaining coverage under the
already issued general permit, typically through submission of a Notice
of Intent (NOI). A general permit is also subject to public comment, as
was done for this permit on June 4, 2010, and is developed and issued
by a permitting authority (in this case, EPA).
    Under 40 CFR 122.28, general permits may be written to cover
categories of point sources having common elements, such as facilities
that involve the same or substantially similar types of operations,
that discharge the same types of wastes, or that are more appropriately
regulated by a general permit. Given the vast number of pesticide
applicators requiring NPDES permit coverage and the discharges common
to these applicators, EPA believes that it makes administrative sense
to issue this general permit, rather than issuing individual permits to
each applicator. Entities still have the ability to seek individual
permit coverage. The general permit approach allows EPA to allocate
resources in a more efficient manner and to provide more timely
coverage. As with any permit, the CWA requires the general permit to
contain technology-based effluent limitations, as well as any more
stringent limits when necessary to meet applicable state water quality
standards. Courts have approved of the use of general permits. See
e.g., Natural Res. Def. Council v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (DC Cir.
1977); EDC v. U.S. EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 853 (9th Cir. 2003).

C. History of Pesticide Application Regulation Under FIFRA

    EPA regulates the sale, distribution and use of pesticides in the
United States under the statutory framework of FIFRA to ensure that,
when used in conformance with FIFRA labeling directions, pesticides
will not pose unreasonable risks to human health and the environment.
All new pesticides must undergo a rigorous registration procedure under
FIFRA during which EPA assesses a variety of potential human health and
environmental effects associated with use of the product. Under FIFRA,
EPA is required to consider the effects of pesticides on the
environment by determining, among other things, whether a pesticide
``will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment,'' and whether ``when used in accordance
with widespread and commonly recognized practice [the pesticide] will
not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.''
7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5). In performing this analysis, EPA examines, among
other things, the ingredients of a pesticide, the intended type of
application site and directions for use, and supporting scientific
studies for human health and environmental effects and exposures. The
applicant for registration of the pesticide must submit data as
required by EPA regulations.
    When EPA approves a pesticide for a particular use, the Agency
imposes labeling restrictions governing such use. Compliance with the
labeling requirements ensures that the pesticide serves an intended
purpose and avoids unreasonable adverse effects. It is illegal under
Section 12(a)(2)(G) of FIFRA to use a registered pesticide in a manner
inconsistent with its labeling. States have primary authority under
FIFRA to enforce ``use'' violations, but both the States and EPA have
ample authority to prosecute pesticide misuse when it occurs.

D. Court Decisions Leading to the CWA Regulation Concerning Pesticide
Applications

    Over the past ten years, several courts addressed the question of
whether the CWA requires NPDES permits for pesticide applications.
These cases resulted in some confusion among the regulated community
and other affected citizens about the applicability of the CWA to
pesticides applied to waters of the United States. In 2001, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Headwaters, Inc. v.
Talent Irrigation District (Talent) that an applicator of herbicides
was required to obtain an NPDES permit under the circumstances before
the court. 243 F.3rd 526 (9th Cir. 2001).
    In 2002, the Ninth Circuit in League of Wilderness Defenders et al.
v. Forsgren (Forsgren) held that the application of pesticides to
control Douglas Fir Tussock Moths in National Forest lands required an
NPDES permit. 309 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2002). The court in Forsgren did
not analyze the question of whether the pesticides applied were
pollutants, because it incorrectly assumed that the parties agreed that
they were (in fact, the United States expressly reserved its arguments
on that issue in its brief to the District Court. Id. at 1184, n.2).
The court instead analyzed the question of whether the aerial
application of the pesticide constituted a point source discharge, and
concluded that it did. Id. at 1185).
    Since Talent and Forsgren, California, Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington, all of which are within the Ninth Circuit, have issued
permits for the application of certain types of pesticides (e.g.,
products to control aquatic weeds and algae and products to control
mosquito larvae). Other States have continued their longstanding
practice of not issuing permits to people who apply pesticides to
waters of the United States. These varying practices reflected the
substantial uncertainty among regulators, the regulated community, and
the public regarding how the CWA applies to pesticides that have been
properly applied and used for their intended purpose.
    Additionally, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the
applicability of the CWA's NPDES permit requirements to pesticide
applications. In Altman v. Town of Amherst (Altman), the court vacated
and remanded for further development of the record a District Court
decision holding that the Town of Amherst was not required to obtain an
NPDES permit to spray mosquitocides over waters of the United States.
47 Fed. Appx. 62, 67

(2nd Cir. 2002). The United States filed an amicus brief setting forth
the Agency's views in the context of that particular case. In its
opinion, the Second Circuit stated that ``[u]ntil the EPA articulates a
clear interpretation of current law--among other things, whether
properly used pesticides released into or over waters of the United
States can trigger the requirement for NPDES permits * * *--the
question of whether properly used pesticides can become pollutants that
violate the CWA will remain open.'' Id. at 67.
    In 2005, the Ninth Circuit again addressed the CWA's applicability
to pesticide applications. In Fairhurst v. Hagener, the court held that
pesticides applied directly to a lake to eliminate non-native fish
species, where there are no residues or unintended effects, are not
``pollutants'' under the CWA because they are not chemical wastes. 422
F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2005).
    Recently, the Second Circuit reaffirmed the recent Sixth Circuit
decision in ruling that trucks and helicopters that sprayed pesticides
should be considered point sources under the CWA. Peconic Baykeeper
Inc. v. Suffolk County, 600 F.3d 180 (2nd Cir. 2010).

E. 2006 Agency Rulemaking Excluding Discharges From Pesticide
Applications from NPDES Permitting

    On November 27, 2006 (71 FR 68483), EPA issued a final rule
(hereinafter called the ``2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule'') clarifying two
specific circumstances in which an NPDES permit is not required to
apply pesticides to or over, including near water provided that the
application is consistent with relevant Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requirements. They are: (1) The application
of pesticides directly to water to control pests; and (2) the
application of pesticides to control pests that are present over,
including near, water where a portion of the pesticides will
unavoidably be deposited to the water to target the pests.

F. Legal Challenges to the 2006 NPDES Pesticide Rule and Resulting
Court Decision

    On January 19, 2007, EPA received petitions for review of the 2006
NPDES Pesticides Rule from both environmental and industry groups.
Petitions were filed in eleven circuit courts with the case, National
Cotton Council, et al, v. EPA, assigned to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On January 9, 2009, the Sixth Circuit vacated EPA's 2006 NPDES
Pesticides Rule under a plain language reading of the CWA. National
Cotton Council of America v. EPA, 553 F.3d 927 (6th Cir. 2009). The
Court held that the CWA unambiguously includes ``biological
pesticides,'' and ``chemical pesticides'' that leave a residue within
its definition of ``pollutant.'' Specifically, the application of
chemical pesticides that leaves no residue is not a pollutant. The
Court also found that the application of pesticides is from a point
source. Thus, point source discharges of biological pesticides and
chemical pesticide residues to Waters of the United States require an
NPDES permit. This also means (as also supported by other court cases)
that point source discharges to waters of the United States from
pesticides applied for forest pest control activities need to obtain an
NPDES permit (see Section III.1 of the Fact Sheet for further
discussion).
    Based on the Court's decision, chemical pesticides that leave no
residue do not require an NPDES permit. However, EPA assumes for
purpose of this permit that all chemical pesticides have a residue,
and, therefore would need a permit unless it can be shown that there is
no residual. Unlike chemical pesticides (where the residual is the
pollutant), the Court further found that biological pesticides are
pollutants regardless of whether the application results in residuals
and such discharges need an NPDES permit.
    In response to this decision, on April 9, 2009, EPA requested a
two-year stay of the mandate to provide the Agency time to develop a
general permit, to assist NPDES-authorized states to develop their
NPDES permits, and to provide outreach and education to the regulated
community and other stakeholders. On June 8, 2009, the Sixth Circuit
granted EPA the two-year stay of the mandate until April 9, 2011. On
November 2, 2009, Industry Petitioners of the Sixth Circuit Case
petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit's decision. On
February 22, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its decision denying
petitions to review the Sixth Circuit decision.
    As a result of the Court's decision on the 2006 NPDES Pesticides
Rule, at the end of the two-year stay, NPDES permits will be required
for point source discharges to waters of the U.S. of biological
pesticides, and of chemical pesticides that leave a residue. Until
April 9, 2011, the rule remains in effect and NPDES permits are not
required.
    In response to the Court's decision, EPA is issuing this final
general permit for four specific pesticide use patterns with an
effective date of April 9, 2011, i.e., the date upon which NPDES
permits are required for discharges from the application of pesticides.
The specified use patterns may not represent every pesticide
application activity for which a discharge requires NPDES permit
coverage; however, the Agency believes these four use patterns
represent a significant portion of those activities for which permit
coverage is now required and is consistent with the use patterns EPA
contemplated in the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule.
    Neither the Court's ruling nor EPA's issuance of this general
permit affects the existing CWA exemptions for irrigation return flow
and agricultural stormwater runoff, which are excluded from the
definition of a point source under Section 502(14) of the CWA and do
not require NPDES permit coverage.

G. Publication of the Draft NPDES Pesticide General Permit

    EPA worked closely with states and other stakeholders to develop
the PGP. Because 44 states are required to develop their own permits,
EPA held three face-to-face meetings and regular conference calls with
environmental and agricultural agencies in each state, in order to
share information and ideas on how to permit this new class of NPDES
permittees. EPA also conducted or attended approximately 150 meetings
with industry experts, environmental interest groups, and other
interested stakeholders.
    EPA published the draft NPDES Pesticide General Permit and
accompanying fact sheet in the Federal Register on June 4, 2010 (75 FR
31775) soliciting comments on that permit, and accepted public comments
through July 19, 2010. In addition, EPA held three public meetings, a
public hearing, and three national webcasts to further educate
stakeholders on the conditions included in the draft permit and to get
feedback on specific areas for which EPA sought additional information
to support finalization of the permit. EPA also conducted formal
consultation with the Tribes. EPA received over 750 written comment
letters on the draft permit from a variety of stakeholders, including
industry; federal, state, and local governments; environmental groups;
academia; and individual citizens. EPA considered all comments received
during the comment period in preparing the final general permit. EPA
responded to all significant comments in the Response to Comment
Document which is available as part of the docket to this permit.

H. Posting of the Draft Final NPDES Pesticide General Permit

    On April 1, 2011, EPA posted a pre-publication version of its draft
final Pesticide General Permit for discharges of pesticide applications
to U.S. waters. This draft final permit was not considered a ``final
agency action,'' and the Agency did not solicit public comment on this
draft final permit. EPA provided a preview of the draft final permit to
assist states in developing their own permits and for the regulated
community to become familiar with the permit's requirements before it
was to become effective. This reflected EPA's commitment to
transparency and responding to the needs of stakeholders. The draft
final permit posted on April 1, 2011 contains largely identical
requirements to the final permit being published today. The principal
change is the addition of conditions to protect listed species as a
result of consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). There have also been
changes to the timing of NOI submission deadlines and some additional
clarifying changes, but these do not alter the intent of the pre-
publication version posted in April.

III. Scope and Applicability of the NPDES Pesticide General Permit

A. Geographic Coverage

    The PGP will provide permit coverage for discharges in areas where
EPA is the NPDES permitting authority. The geographic coverage of
today's final permit is listed below. Where this permit covers
activities on Indian Country lands, those areas are as listed below
within the borders of that state:
EPA Region 1
     Massachusetts, including Indian Country lands within
Massachusetts
     Indian Country lands within Connecticut
     New Hampshire
     Indian Country lands within Rhode Island
     Federal Facilities within Vermont
EPA Region 2
     Indian Country lands within New York
     Puerto Rico
EPA Region 3
     The District of Columbia
     Federal Facilities within Delaware
EPA Region 4
     Indian Country lands within Alabama
     Indian Country lands within Florida
     Indian Country lands within Mississippi
     Indian Country lands within North Carolina
EPA Region 5
     Indian Country lands within Michigan
     Indian Country lands within Minnesota, excluding Sokaogon
Chippewa Community
     Indian Country lands within Wisconsin, excluding Lac du
Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and Fond du Lac
Reservation
EPA Region 6
     Indian Country lands within Louisiana
     New Mexico, including Indian Country lands within New
Mexico, except Navajo Reservation Lands (see Region 9) and Ute Mountain
Reservation Lands (see Region 8)
     Oklahoma, including Indian Country lands
     Discharges in Texas that are not under the authority of
the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly TNRCC),
including activities associated with the exploration, development, or
production of oil or gas or geothermal resources, including
transportation of crude oil or natural gas by pipeline, including
Indian Country lands within Texas
EPA Region 7
     Indian Country lands within Iowa
     Indian Country lands within Kansas
     Indian Country lands within Nebraska, except Pine Ridge
Reservation lands (see Region 8)
EPA Region 8
     Federal Facilities within Colorado, including those on
Indian Country lands within Colorado as well as the portion of the Ute
Mountain Reservation located in New Mexico
     Indian Country lands within the State of Colorado, as well
as the portion of the Ute Mountain Reservation located in New Mexico
     Indian Country lands within Montana
     Indian Country lands within North Dakota
     Indian Country lands within South Dakota, as well as the
portion of the Pine Ridge Reservation located within Nebraska (see
Region 7)
     Indian Country lands within Utah, except Goshute and
Navajo Reservation lands (see Region 9)
     Indian Country lands within Wyoming
EPA Region 9
     American Samoa
     Indian Country lands within Arizona as well as Navajo
Reservation lands within New Mexico (see Region 6) and Utah (see Region
8), excluding for Hualapai Reservation
     Indian Country lands within California
     Guam
     Johnston Atoll
     Midway Island and Wake Island and other unincorporated
U.S. possessions
     Northern Mariana Islands
     Indian Country lands within Nevada, as well as the Duck
Valley Reservation within Idaho, the Fort McDermitt Reservation within
Oregon (see Region 10) and the Goshute Reservation within Utah (see
Region 8)
EPA Region 10
     Alaska, including Indian Country lands
     The State of Idaho, including Indian Country lands within
Idaho, except Duck Valley Reservation lands (see Region 9), excluding
Puyallup Tribe Reservation
     Indian Country lands within Oregon, except Fort McDermitt
Reservation lands (see Region 9)
     Federal Facilities in Washington, including those located
on Indian Country lands within Washington, excluding Puyallup Tribe
Reservation

B. Categories of Facilities Covered

    The final general permit regulates discharges to waters of the
United States from the application of (1) biological pesticides, and
(2) chemical pesticides that leave a residue for the following four
pesticide use patterns.
     Mosquito and Other Flying Insect Pest Control--to control
public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests that develop or
are present during a portion of their life cycle in or above standing
or flowing water. Public health/nuisance and other flying insect pests
in this use category include mosquitoes and black flies.
     Weed and Algae Pest Control--to control weeds, algae, and
pathogens that are pests in water and at water's edge, including
ditches and/or canals.
     Animal Pest Control--to control animal pests in water and
at water's edge. Animal pests in this use category include fish,
lampreys, insects, mollusks, and pathogens.
     Forest Canopy Pest Control--application of a pesticide to
a forest canopy to control the population of a pest species (e.g.,
insect or pathogen) where, to target the pests effectively, a portion
of the pesticide unavoidably will be applied over and deposited to
water.

    The scope of activities encompassed by these pesticide use patterns
is described in greater detail in Part III.1.1. of the fact sheet for
the final general permit.

C. Summary of Permit Terms and Requirements

    The following is a summary of the final PGP's requirements:
     The PGP defines Operator (i.e., the entity required to
obtain NPDES permit coverage for discharges) to include any (a)
Applicator who performs the application of pesticides or has day-to-day
control of the application of pesticides that results in a discharge to
Waters of the United States, or (b) Decision-maker who controls any
decision to apply pesticides that results in a discharge to Waters of
the United States. There may be instances when a single entity acts as
both an Applicator and a Decision-maker.
     All Applicators are required to minimize pesticide
discharges by using only the amount of pesticide and frequency of
pesticide application necessary to control the target pest, maintain
pesticide application equipment in proper operating condition, control
discharges as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards, and
monitor for and report any adverse incidents.
     All Decision-makers are required, to the extent not
determined by the Applicator, to minimize pesticide discharges by using
only the amount of pesticide and frequency of pesticide application
necessary to control the target pest. All Decision-makers are also
required to control discharges as necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards and monitor for and report any adverse incidents.
     Coverage under this permit is available only for
discharges and discharge-related activities that are not likely to
adversely affect species that are federally-listed as endangered or
threatened (``listed'') under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or
habitat that is federally-designated as critical under the ESA
(``critical habitat''), except for certain cases specified in the
permit involving prior consultation with the Services and Declared Pest
Emergencies. The permit contains several provisions addressing listed
species, including for certain listed species identified in the permit
as NMFS Listed Resources of Concern, that Decision-makers whose
discharges may affect these resources certify compliance with one of
six criteria which together ensure that any potential adverse effects
have been properly considered and addressed. These NMFS Listed
Resources of Concern for the PGP are identified in detail on EPA's Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pesticides. These provisions were
added as a result of consultation between EPA and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), as required under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. Other requirements that address protection of listed
species include the waiting periods between submission of an NOI and
authorization to discharge, and specific permit conditions requiring
compliance with the results of any ESA Section 7 consultation with the
Services, or ESA Section 10 permit issued by the Services.
     Certain Decision-makers (i.e., any agency for which pest
management for land resource stewardship is an integral part of the
organization's operations, entities with a specific responsibility to
control pests (e.g., mosquito and weed control districts), local
governments or other entities that apply pesticides in excess of
specified annual treatment area thresholds, and entities that discharge
pesticides to Tier 3 waters or to Waters of the United States
containing NMFS Listed Resources of Concern) are required to also
submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to obtain authorization to discharge
and implement pest management options to reduce the discharge of
pesticides to Waters of the United States. Certain large Decision-
makers must also develop a Pesticide Discharge Management Plan (PDMP),
submit annual reports, and maintain detailed records. Certain small
Decision-makers are required to complete a pesticide discharge
evaluation worksheet for each pesticide application (in lieu of the
more comprehensive PDMP), an annual report, and detailed recordkeeping.
    Permit conditions take effect as of October 31, 2011; however,
Operators with eligible discharges are authorized for permit coverage
through January 12, 2010 without submission of an NOI. Thus, for any
discharges commencing on or before January 12, 2012 that will continue
after this date, an NOI will need to be submitted no later than January
2, 2012 to ensure uninterrupted permit coverage, and for any discharge
occurring after January 12, 2012, no later than 10 days before the
first discharge occurring after January 12, 2012.
    The following is a summary of permit terms and requirements
modified from the draft PGP public noticed on June 4, 2010:
     Expanded the forest canopy pest control use pattern to
also include pesticide application activities performed from the
ground;
     Expanded eligibility provisions to provide for coverage
for discharges to Tier 3 waters from pesticide applications made to
restore or maintain water quality or to protect public health or the
environment that either do not degrade water quality or that only
degrade water quality on a short-term or temporary basis;
     Eliminated the requirement for certain Applicators to
submit NOIs;
     Revised annual treatment area thresholds (which trigger
the need for NOI submission and implementation of more comprehensive
Pest Management Measures and documentation);
     Delayed discharge date for which NOIs are required for a
little more than two months after permit issuance;
     Refined definitions of ``Operator,'' ``Applicator,'' and
``Decision-maker,'' for purposes of delineating responsibilities under
the permit between Applicators and Decision-makers based on EPA's
expectation for these two groups of Operators;
     Added requirement for Applicators to assess weather
conditions in the treatment area to ensure pesticide application is
consistent with all federal requirements;
     Added requirement for certain Operators to document visual
monitoring activities, Provided different responsibilities for small
Decision-makers to complete a pesticide discharge evaluation worksheet
in lieu of a more comprehensive PDMP, annual report, and detailed
recordkeeping; and
     Added specific permit conditions for states and Tribes in
accordance with CWA section 401 certifications.

IV. Economic Impacts of the Pesticide General Permit

    As a result of the Sixth Circuit Court decision on EPA's 2006 NPDES
Pesticides Rule, operators of discharges to waters of the U.S. from the
application of pesticides now require NPDES permits for those
discharges. EPA expects that costs associated with complying with the
effluent limitations under this general permit will be similar to costs
under individual permits for similar activities; however,
administrative costs for both EPA as the permitting authority and
operators as permittees are expected to be lower under this general
permit than under individual permits. In other words, the general
permit itself can be expected to reduce rather than increase costs for
permittees as compared to the baseline of individual permitting.
    EPA expects the economic impact on covered entities, including
small businesses, to be minimal. EPA requested additional information
during

the public notice of the draft permit and updated the analysis as
appropriate for the final permit. A copy of EPA's economic analysis,
titled, ``Economic Analysis of the Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for
Point Source Discharges from the Application of Pesticides'' is
available in the docket for this permit. The economic impact analysis
indicates that the PGP will cost approximately $10.0 million dollars
annually for the 35,200 operators in the areas for which EPA is the
permitting authority. Knowing that most applicators and decision-makers
are small businesses, EPA conducted a small entity economic analysis.
Based on available data, this permit will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The economic
impact analysis is included in the administrative record for this
permit.

V. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993))
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 1.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Ariel Iglesias,
Deputy Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection,
EPA Region 2.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Carl-Axel P. Soderberg,
Division Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA,
Region 2.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 3.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Gail Mitchell,
Acting Director, Water Protection Division, EPA, Region 4.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Tinka G. Hyde,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
William K. Honker,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Karen A. Flournoy,
Acting Director, Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division, EPA
Region 7.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Stephen S. Tuber,
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Partnerships and
Regulatory Assistance, EPA Region 8.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Alexis Strauss,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.

    Dated: October 31, 2011.
Michael A. Bussell,
Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2011-28770 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 83 (Friday, April 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 24014]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10314]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. P-13338-001; P-14148-000

Free Flow Power Corporation; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent To File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project Nos.: 13338-001 and 14148-000.
    c. Date Filed: March 25, 2011.
    d. Submitted by: Free Flow Power Corporation (Free Flow Power), on
behalf of its subsidiary FFP Kansas 1 LLC d/b/a FFP Lock and Dam No. 9.
    e. Name of Projects: Mississippi Lock & Dam No. 9 Project, P-13338-
001 and Mississippi Lock & Dam No. 9--Auxiliary Lock Water Power
Project, P-14148-000.
    f. Location: At an existing lock and dam owned and operated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Upper Mississippi River in Crawford
County, Wisconsin and Allamakee County, Iowa. The project would occupy
United States lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Chief Operating
Officer, Free Flow Power, 239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114-2130;
(978) 283-2822; or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Aaron Liberty at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Free Flow Power filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on March 25, 2011. Free Flow Power provided public
notice of its request on December 29, 2010. In a letter dated April 20,
2011, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects approved Free Flow
Power's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) the Wisconsin and
Iowa State Historic Preservation Officers, as required by section 106,
National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Free Flow Power as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Free Flow Power filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including
a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to
18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    o. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 22, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10314 Filed 4-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 124 (Friday, June 26, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38340-38342]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0505; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASW-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of V-63 in the Vicinity of Texoma, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)
Federal airway V-63 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR
portion of the Texoma, OK, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME)
navigation aid (NAVAID). The Texoma VOR provides navigation guidance
for a portion of V-63 and is being decommissioned as part of the FAA's
VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0505; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASW-1 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the National Airspace System as necessary
to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0505; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASW-1) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2020-0505; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASW-1.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned

with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Blvd.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning to decommission the VOR portion of the Texoma,
OK, VOR/DME in December 2020. The Texoma VOR was one of the candidate
VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and
listed in the Final policy statement notice, ``Provision of Navigation
Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing
a VOR Minimum Operational Network),'' published in the Federal Register
of July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082. Although the
VOR portion of the Texoma VOR/DME NAVAID is planned for
decommissioning, the DME portion of the NAVAID is being retained to
support Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Performance
Based Navigation (PBN) flight procedure requirements. The only Air
Traffic Service (ATS) route dependency to the Texoma VOR is VOR Federal
airway V-63.
    With the planned decommissioning of the Texoma VOR, the remaining
ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the
continuity of V-63. As such, the proposed amendment to the airway would
result in the airway segment supported by the Texoma VOR being removed
and the airway beginning at the Razorback, AR, VOR/Tactical Air
Navigation (VORTAC) NAVAID. To overcome the loss of the affected airway
segment, instrument flight rules (IFR) pilots could use adjacent VOR
Federal airways, including V15, V-16, V-114, V-124, V-278, and V-583,
or could request air traffic control radar vectors to fly through or
circumnavigate the affected area. IFR pilots equipped with area
navigation (RNAV) PBN could also navigate point to point using the
existing fixes that will remain in place to support continued
operations though the affected area. Visual flight rules (VFR) pilots
who elect to navigate via the airways through the affected area could
also take advantage of the air traffic services previously listed.
    Prior to this NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No. FAA-
2020-0010 in the Federal Register (85 FR 27114; May 7, 2020), amending
VOR Federal airway V-63 by removing the airway segment between the
Texoma, OK, VOR/DME and the Razorback, AR, VORTAC. The airway
amendment, effective July 16, 2020, is included in this NPRM.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend VOR Federal airway V-63 due to
the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Texoma, OK, VOR/
DME. The proposed VOR Federal airway action is described below.
    V-63: V-63 currently extends between the Bowie, TX, VORTAC and the
Texoma, OK, VOR/DME; between the Razorback, AR, VORTAC and the Oshkosh,
WI, VORTAC; and between the Wausau, WI, VORTAC and the Houghton, MI,
VOR/DME. The FAA proposes to remove the airway segment between the
Bowie, TX, VORTAC and the Texoma, OK, VOR/DME. The unaffected portions
of the existing airway would remain as charted.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airway
listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-63 [Amended]

    From Razorback, AR; Springfield, MO; Hallsville, MO; Quincy, IL;
Burlington, IA; Moline, IL; Davenport, IA; Rockford, IL; Janesville,
WI; Badger, WI; to Oshkosh, WI. From Wausau, WI; Rhinelander, WI; to
Houghton, MI. Excluding that airspace at and above 10,000 feet MSL
from 5 NM north to 46 NM north of Quincy, IL, when the Howard West
MOA is active.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 18, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-13658 Filed 6-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/09/2008 09:57 AM

To

"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"King, Heidi R." <EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

ooooooooooops

Heidi, I sent the April 6 version instead of the May 6 version of chapter 6 the other day.  Mea culpa -- I have too many files in my drive.,

Here's the correct version:

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

05/06/2008 11:08 AM

To

"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Darryl Weatherhead/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Walton/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

draft changes to Pb RIA chapter 4 and 6

Amanda -- attached are changes in response to your comments.  Please see pages 5 and 11 of chapter 4 and pages 11 and 15 of chapter 6.  I've also sent this officially through OPEI, but am forwarding directly to you in the interest of time.

Thanks!

-- Kathy

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

										July 12,  2007

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document - Findings for Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets; 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the
Maintenance Plan for the York/Adams Counties, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area

      FROM: 	Martin Kotsch, 3AP23 /s/

	TO:	Administrative Record for Review of the 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle
Emission Budgets in the Maintenance Plan for the York/Adams Counties,
Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

	THRU:	Carol Febbo, Chief  /s/

Energy, Radiation and Indoor Environment Branch (3AP23)

I.   Administrative Requirements For Making Adequacy Findings

The adequacy and approvability of the 2009 and 2018 Motor Vehicle
Emissions Budgets contained in the Maintenance Plan submitted by the
Pennsylvania  Department of  Environmental Protection (PADEP) on June
14, 2007 for the York/Adams Counties, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Non-attainment
Area  was reviewed in accordance with the procedures and criteria of the
Transportation Conformity Rule contained in 40 CFR Part 93, Sections
93.106(a)(1) 106(a)(2)(i), 93.110, 93.113(b), 93.118 (e) (4) through (5)
and the following guidance:

-  January 18, 2002 EPA memorandum from John Seitz and Margo Oge
entitled: “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development
and Transportation Conformity”, and

-  February 12, 2003 EPA memorandum from Tom Helms and Leila Cook
entitled: “Clarification of Policy Guidance for MOBILE6 SIPs in
Mid-course Review Areas”, and

- March 8, 2005 EPA memorandum from Suzanne Rudzinski and Lydia Wegman
entitled  “Guidance for Determining the "Attainment Year" for
Transportation Conformity in New 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas”, and

- May 2005  Reference document entitled  “Complete Transportation
Conformity Regulations that Incorporate Recent Conformity Final Rule
Amendments (Through May 2005)”.

On June 14, 2007, the Pennsylvania Department of the Environmental
Protection (PADEP) submitted its motor vehicle emission budgets to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a part of its State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision.  The Pennsylvania  public comment
period on the SIP revision closed on June 8, 2007.

EPA will be issuing its own Notice of  Proposed Rule Making for a 30-day
public comment period  soliciting public comment as to the approvability
of the Pennsylvania SIP submission.  Concurrently with the EPA Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, a notice will be posted on EPA’s website at
HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp.htm      HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm  for the
purpose of opening EPA’s 30-day public comment period on the
adequacy/approvability of the budgets in the SIP revision.  That notice
will inform  the public of the availability of the Pennsylvania  SIP
revision on its own website.  EPA’s website notice will provide a link
to the address for the  website where interested members of the public
could access the SIP revision.  Following EPA’s public comment period,
responses to any comments received on the proposed mobile budgets in the
Pennsylvania SIP will be addressed in an amendment to this TSD.

II.  Evaluation of the Budgets

Table 1 - The Budgets

Clean Air Act Requirement	Milestone Year	Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget
for NOx in Kilograms Per Day	Mobile Vehicle Emissions Budget for VOCs in
Kilograms Per Day

Maintenance Plan	2009	20,705	14,453

	2018	9,108	8,219

Table 2

Adequacy/Approvability of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the
Maintenance Plan Submitted by PADEP on June 14, 2007 for the York/Adams
Counties, Pennsylvania  8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area

Transportation Conformity Rule

	Review Criteria	Was the Criterion Satisfied?    If “Yes” How was
this Criterion Satisfied?

93.106(a)(1)	Are the budget years correct?	Yes

93.106(a)(2)(i)	Does the plan quantify and document the demographic and
employment factors influencing transportation demand?	Yes

93.110	Are the emissions budgets based upon the latest planning
assumptions?

(a)   Are the emission budgets, with respect to all other applicable
criteria in §§93.111 - 93.119, based upon the most recent planning
assumptions in force at the time of the development of the budgets?

(b) Are the assumptions derived from the estimates of current and future
population, employment, travel, and congestion most recently developed
by the MPO or other designated agency and are the budgets based upon the
latest assumptions about current and future background concentrations?

	Yes

Yes

Yes

	(e)  Do the budgets include the latest existing information regarding
the effectiveness of TCMs and other implementation plan measures which
have already been implemented.

(f) Are key assumptions specified and included in the draft documents
and supporting materials used for the interagency and public
consultation required by §93.105?	There are no previous TCMs.

Yes

 93.111	Are the budgets based upon the latest emissions model?	Yes,
MOBILE6.2, the latest EPA emissions model was utilized.

93.113(b)	Have previously committed TCM's been implemented?	There were
no TCMS in the previously approved SIP

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii)	Before the control strategy implementation plan
was submitted to EPA, did consultation between  federal, State and local
agencies occur; was full implementation plan documentation provided to
EPA, and were EPA’s stated concerns, if any, addressed?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii)	Were the motor vehicle emissions budgets clearly
identified and precisely quantified?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv)	Is the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when
considered together with all other emission reductions, consistent with
applicable  requirements for the control strategy implementation

plan?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v)	Is the motor vehicle emissions budget(s) consistent
with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control
measures in the submitted control strategy? implementation plan?	Yes

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi)	Revisions to previously submitted control strategy
implementation plan:  explain and document any changes to previously
submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source
emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see Sec. 93.101
for definition); and reasons for the changes (including the basis for
any changes related to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles
traveled).	The new budgets have been changed to reflect a new emissions
inventory and a new baseyear which were required in the development of
the new maintenance plan under the 8-hour ozone standard.

Sec. 93.118(e)(5)	Did they provide and did  we review the State’s
responses to the public comments?	There was one comment submitted
relevant to the mobile vehicle emissions budgets in the SIP during the
State comment period.  The State responded adequately to the comment.

III.  Recommendation

Based upon our review and evaluation of the motor vehicle emission
budgets contained in the Maintenance Plan submitted by PADEP for the
York/Adams Counties, Pennsylvania 8-Hour Ozone Non-attainment Area
submitted on June 14, 2007, we recommend that the mobile emission
budgets be found adequate and approved.