MEMORANDUM

DATE:		August 25, 2014

TO:		Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Anna Phillips, EPA/OITA

SUBJECT:	August 25, 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 25, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.        ATTENDEES

Delegation from German Bundestag (Federal Parliament) Committee on Environment, Nature Protection, Building and Nuclear Safety:

Bärbel Höhn, Committee Chairwoman and Head of Delegation

Artur Auernhammer, Deputy Chairman

Oliver Grundmann, Member of Parliament

Sylvia Jörrißen, Member of Parliament

Klaus Mindrup , Member of Parliament

Michael Thews, Member of Parliament

Hubertus Zdebel, Member of Parliament

Elmar Ostermann, Committee Staff

Joerg Kinnen, German Embassy

Michael Weber, German Embassy


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19412-19413]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7618]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0011]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. The petition has been
assigned Docket Number FRA-2012-0011.
    Farmrail System Inc. (Farmrail), located in Clinton, OK, hereby
petitions FRA for a waiver from 49 CFR 213.4(e)(3) to allow more than
five cars required to be placarded by the Hazardous Materials
Regulations (49 CFR part 172) to operate in a single-unit train
consist. Farmrail proposes that FRA grant Farmrail a waiver of
compliance that will permit more than five tank cars carrying any
quantity of crude oil moving from the Anadarko Basin to operate over
designated ``excepted track'' segments. The basin is located between
Clinton and Sayre, OK. The 17-mile segment between Elk City and Sayre
is the former Rock Island Railroad main track and currently designated
as excepted track. Under this proposal, outbound loads would be metered
in maximum blocks of 10 cars, while up to 20 inbound empties could be
moved as they arrive (without unnecessary delay and loss of velocity);
thereby relieving severe track congestion at Elk City. Farmrail claims
the relief would not only improve the increasing volume of outbound
traffic, but also eliminate bunching of inbound empties at the Elk City
bottleneck between Class 2 and excepted track, where longer strings
must now be split into five-car blocks for delivery to the different
logistics customers.
    Additionally, Farmrail states that a rail shipper in Sayre receives
inbound loaded tank cars of methanol at a rate of approximately one or
two cars per month. Methanol is a hazardous material. Under this
proposal, a loaded car of methanol would displace one empty car of
crude oil, and an empty tank car of methanol would displace one loaded
car of crude oil. A train leaving Elk City for Sayre would be permitted
to have up to 19 empty crude oil cars and one loaded methanol car.
Similarly, a train leaving Sayre for Elk City could have 9 loaded crude
oil cars and one empty methanol car.
    Farmrail states that they have experienced no line-haul derailments
between Elk City and Sayre on the 100-pound former mainline rail at 10
mph. Farmrail has installed new ties where there is curvature, so the
safety risk for empty tank cars in this extremely rural environment is
minimal. Public benefits from issuance of the requested regulatory
waiver would include a potential 50-percent reduction in the number of
train movements required to move available traffic and associated grade
crossing accident exposure. Farmrail train crews have had emergency
response and hazmat training, and their operating practices are
randomly monitored by a field compliance supervisor. Farmrail proposes
to conduct twice-weekly hi-rail inspections of the subject track
segment until it can be reclassified.
    Additionally, Farmrail states that they are the recipients of the
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery or TIGER III
grant funds for the rehabilitation of 49 miles of rail line in western
Oklahoma to sound Class 2 safety standards. The Clinton-to-Sayre
segment is critical to the origination of rapidly growing volumes of
crude oil produced from the Anadarko Basin oil and gas reserves. The
$8.4 million-track project, sponsored by the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation (ODOT), includes 20 percent in local matching funds and
an indicated benefit-cost factor of 56.8, as posted by ODOT on its Web
site www.odot.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.

    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2012-0011) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within 30 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the U.S. Department of Transportation's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Dated: Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2012.
Ron Hynes,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-7618 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59688]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-148]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available from: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy,
Washington, DC 20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 12f-3, OMB Control No. 3235-0249, SEC File No. 270-141.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
     Rule 12f-3 (17 CFR 240.12f-3)--Termination or Suspension
of Unlisted Trading Privileges
    Rule 12f-3 (the ``Rule''), which was originally adopted in 1934
pursuant to Sections 12(f) and 23(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Act''), as modified in 1995, prescribes
the information which must be included in applications for and notices
of termination or suspension of unlisted trading privileges for a
security as contemplated in Section 12(f)(4) of the Act. An application
must provide, among other things, the name of the applicant; a brief
statement of the applicant's interest in the question of termination or
suspension of such unlisted trading privileges; the title of the
security; the name of the issuer; certain information regarding the
size of the class of security and its recent trading history; and a
statement indicating that the applicant has provided a copy of such
application to the exchange from which the suspension or termination of
unlisted trading privileges are sought, and to any other exchange on
which the security is listed or admitted to unlisted trading
privileges.
    The information required to be included in applications submitted
pursuant to Rule 12f-3, is intended to provide the Commission with
sufficient information to make the necessary findings under the Act to
terminate or suspend by order the unlisted trading privileges granted a
security on a national securities exchange. Without the Rule, the
Commission would be unable to fulfill these statutory responsibilities.
    The burden of complying with Rule 12f-3 arises when a potential
respondent, having a demonstrable bona fide interest in the question of
termination or suspension of the unlisted trading privileges of a
security, determines to seek such termination or suspension. The staff
estimates that each such application to terminate or suspend unlisted
trading privileges requires approximately one hour to complete. Thus
each potential respondent would incur on average one burden hour in
complying with the Rule.
    The Commission staff estimates that there could be as many as 11
responses annually and that each respondent's related cost of
compliance with Rule 12f-3 would be $168.00, or, the cost of one hour
of professional work needed to complete the application. The total
annual related reporting cost for all potential respondents, therefore,
is $1,848.00 (11 responses x $168.00/response).
    Compliance with the application requirements of Rule 12f-3 is
mandatory, though the filing of such applications is undertaken
voluntarily. Rule 12f-3 does not have a record retention requirement
per se. However, responses made pursuant to Rule 12f-3 are subject to
the recordkeeping requirements of Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 of the Act.
Information received in response to Rule 12f-3 shall not be kept
confidential; the information collected is public information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to Lewis W. Walker, Acting Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 1, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23931 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


RESPONSE TO COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL TO
EPA’S PROPOSED RULE TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE OHIO’S CHANGES TO ITS
NEW SOURCE REVIEW RULES.

The National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) commented on EPA’s
proposal to conditionally approve Ohio’s new source review (NSR) rule
changes.  NRDC primarily commented on the requirements of the federal
NSR rules, not Ohio’s application of the federal requirements in its
own rules.  The more appropriate venue for these comments would have
been when EPA public noticed our rule changes.  However, this response
to comment document contains responses to the entire range of comments
in the letter submitted by NRDC on the May 11, 2005 proposal to
conditionally approve Ohio’s NSR rule changes.  Following each point
raised by NRDC in comment, EPA responds to the comment.

Comment:  I. Ohio's Adoption of EPA's 2002 New Source Review Rule

A. Provisions in Ohio's Submission Prevent the State's Revised Plan From
Meeting - and Cause the Revised Plan to Interfere With - the Applicable
Requirements in Sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(I), and 110(a)(2)(J) .

Provisions in Ohio's submission contravene sections 165(a) and 169(2)(C)
in part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and sections 171(4) and 172(a)(5)
in part D of the Act, thereby preventing the permit program in the
state's revised plan from being "as required in parts C and D," id. §
7410(a)(2)(C), from "meet[ing] the applicable requirements of . . . part
C," id. § 7410(a)(2)(J), and from  meet[ing] the applicable
requirements of part D." Id. § 7410(a)(2)(1) . The conflict is stark:
Whereas sections 165(a), 169(2)(C), 171(4), and 172(a)(5) of the Act
apply the preconstruction permitting requirements to all activities that
fall within section I 11(a)(4)'s definition of "modification," id. §§
7475(a) (applying preconstruction permitting provisions to all
"construction"), 7479(2)(C) ("`construction' . . . includes the
modification (as defined in section 7411(a) of this title) of any source
or facility"), 7502(a)(5) ("plan provisions shall require permits for
the construction . . . of new or modified major stationary sources"),
7501(4)( "`modified' mean[s] the same as the term `modification' as used
in section 7411(a)(4) of this title"), the following provisions in
Ohio's submission purport to exempt activities that fall within that
statutory definition:

OAC 3745-31-01:

(O) ("or shall equal the unit's potential to emit if operation of the
new unit has begun")

(Y)

(lll)(4)(c)

(111)(4)(d)

(111)(5)(h)

(111)(5)(i)

(111)(5)(j)

(PPP)(1)(a)(vi)

(PPP)(1)(a)(vii)

(SSS)(3)(d)

(CCCC)

(RRRR)

(ZZZZZ)(2)(h) ("57 FR 3946, Feb. 3, 1992 . . . 67 FR 80244, Dec. 31,
2002")

(ZZZZZ)(2)(u) ("57 FR 3946, Feb. 3, 1992 . . . 67 FR 80244, Dec. 31,
2002")

OAC 3745-31-21 :

(E)(2)

(E)(3)

(E)(4)

OAC 3745-31-30 (entirety)

OAC 3745-31-31 (entirety)

The United States Court-of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
recently held that these very provisions - as found in the EPA rule that
the Ohio revision seeks to implement (see 70 Fed. Reg. at 24734/2,
24735/3) - unlawfully exempt activities that fall within section
111(a)(4)'s definition of "modification ." New York v. EPA, 413 F .3d 3,
40 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 2005) (Attachment 20) ("because the plain
language of the CAA indicates that Congress intended to apply NSR to
changes that increase actual emissions instead of potential or allowable
emissions, we hold that EPA lacks authority to promulgate the Clean Unit
provision, and we vacate that portion of the 2002 rule") ; id. at 41-42
("we hold that EPA lacks authority to create PCP  exemptions from NSR,
and we vacate those parts of the 1992 and 2002 rules . . . as contrary
to the statute") .

[Please note: EPA states that "Ohio also revised the rule language to
require that electric utility steam generating unit actual emissions are
to be based on potential to emit rather than representative actual
annual emissions." 70 Fed. Reg. at 24735/3 . We do not find a provision
meeting EPA's description in the referenced Ohio provision. See OAC
3745-31-01(C)(2) . If Ohio's submission does contain such a provision,
and if the provision applies to determining whether a physical or
operational change "increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted,"
42 U.S.C. § 7411(a)(4), then the provision contravenes and interferes
with parts C and D of the CAA, because "the CAA indicates that Congress
intended to apply NSR to changes that increase actual emissions instead
of potential or allowable emissions." New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d at 40.]

The presence of those provisions in Ohio's revised permit program thus
prevents the state's program from being "as required in parts C and D,"
42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(C), from "meet[ing] the applicable requirements
of . . . part C," id. § 7410(a)(2)(J), and from "meet[ing] the
applicable requirements of part D." Id. § 7410(a)(2)(I) . Therefore,
EPA will exceed its authority under section 110(k)(3) and violate
section 110(l) if the agency approves Ohio's revised plan.

Response:  EPA responds that EPA’s rules were upheld by the court
which reviewed them, State of New York et al. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C.
Circuit, June 24, 2006), with the exception of the pollution control
project and clean unit provisions.  Therefore, EPA’s rules (with the
exceptions noted) are lawful, and Ohio’s rules based on the EPA rules
are also lawful and, for the reasons stated in the notice of final
rulemaking, are being approved.  In a November 15, 2005 letter, the OEPA
withdrew its request for approval of the sections of the Ohio
Administrative Code that correspond with the vacated portions of EPA’s
rules.  Furthermore, on June 2, 2008 OEPA removed the pollution control
project and clean unit provisions from its rules. The action became
effective June 30, 2008.  EPA is not approving these sections into the
SIP.

Comment:  B. Other Provisions in Ohio's Submission Cause the State's
Revised Plan to Interfere with Applicable Requirements Concerning
Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress.

Other provisions in Ohio's submission cause the state's revised plan to
"interfere with [] applicable requirement[s] concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress." Id. §7410(1). Specifically, the following
provisions in Ohio's submission cause the state's revised plan to
interfere with the statutory requirements that a state plan provide for
attainment, prohibit emissions that interfere with attainment or
maintenance, and require reasonable further progress toward expeditious
attainment, see id. §§ 7410(ax2)(C) ("provide for the . . . regulation
of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the
areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient
air quality standards are achieved"), 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) ("contain
adequate provisions . . . prohibiting" significant contribution to
nonattainment – or interference with maintenance - of any national
ambient air quality standard in another state),

7502(c)(1) ("provide for attainment of the national ambient air quality
standards"), 7502(c)(2),

7501(1), 7502(a)(2)(A)-(B) ("require reasonable further progress" toward
"attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard[s]"
"as expeditiously as practicable") :

OAC 3745-31-01:

(D)

(O)

(IlI)(6)

(SSS)(3)(a)

(CCCC)

(DDDD)

(EEEE)

(FFFF)

(GGGG)

(HHHH)

(IIII)

(JJJJ)

(KKKK)

(0000)

(ZZZZZ)(2)(h) ("57 FR 3946, Feb. 3, 1992 . . . 67 FR 80244, Dec. 31,
2002")

(ZZZZZ)(2)(u) ("57 FR 3946, Feb. 3, 1992 . . . 67 FR 80244, Dec. 31,
2002")

OAC 3745-31-32 (entirety)

As EPA continues to acknowledge, section 110(l) of the Act prohibits the
agency from approving a state plan revision that would "allow[]
emissions that are prohibited by the current SIP," unless EPA can uphold
a demonstration by the state that "the emissions that are allowed by its
revised rule but are prohibited by the current SIP would not interfere
with attainment or other applicable requirements." 70 Fed. Reg. 36901,
36903/3 (June 27, 2005); accord id. at 36903/2 ("EPA's first concern is
that the expansion of exemptions from Ohio's opacity limits
constitute[s] a relaxation that may interfere with applicable
requirements and thus contravene Clean Air Act section 110(l)."); id. at
36903/2 ("[T]he revised rules allow excess opacity on occasions that
excess opacity is currently prohibited, without any compensating
prohibitions of emissions that are currently allowed."); id. at 36903/3
("EPA cannot approve such a revision that also includes a less stringent
set of opacity limits without a demonstration pursuant to section 110(1)
that the revisions would not interfere with applicable requirements of
the Clean Air Act.").

The 2002 rule provisions that were not vacated by the D .C. Circuit in
New York v. EPA allow previously-prohibited emissions-increases to
occur. See Petition for Reconsideration of American Lung Association, et
al. (May 8, 2003) (Attachment 8), at 1-93; Reconsideration Comments of
NRDC, et al. (Aug. 28, 2003) (Attachment 10), at 3-17, 19-27; Final
Opening Brief of Environmental Petitioners (Attachment 16), at 11-33,
45-47; Brief of Government Petitioners (Attachment 17) at 16-35, 44-47,
51-53 ; Final Reply Brief of Environmental Petitioners (Attachment 18)
at 2-16, 21-23; Reply Brief of Government Petitioners (Attachment 19) at
2-15, 21-26; Abt. Associates, Nucor Steel Analysis (Attachment 1); Abt.
Associates, Mobile Joliet Analysis (Attachment 2); Environmental
Integrity Project, Bright Lines or Loopholes? (Attachment 3); Affidavit
of Craig A. Wright (Attachment 4); Affidavit of Dr. Iclal Atay
(Attachment 5); Affidavit of Marc Allen Robert Cone, P.E. (Attachment
6); National Academy of Public Administration, A Breath of Fresh Air
(Attachment 7); General Accounting Office, EPA

Should Use Available Data to Monitor the Effects of Its Revisions to the
New Source Review Program (Attachment 9); Connecticut, et al.
Reconsideration Comments (Attachment 11); Delaware Reconsideration
Comments (Attachment 12) ; Environmental Integrity Project Letter to EPA
(Attachment 13) ; William R. Moomaw, Assessment of "Reform or Rollback?"
(Attachment 14); Environmental Integrity Project, Additional Results and
Corrections (Attachment 15).

[Please note: The 2002 rule provisions considered by the D.C. Circuit in
New York v. EPA were EPA regulations, not state ones. The court thus had
no occasion to decide whether EPA could approve any state's versions of
any of the 2002 rule provisions consistently with section, 110(1) of the
Act. Cf. 69 Fed. Reg. 54006, 54008/3 (Sept. 7, 2004) ("[C]ertain
requirements in the submitted NSR program may not be needed to satisfy
CAA NSR requirements for major sources and major modifications, but are
necessary to provide EPA with the basis to approve the overall NSR
program revision to supersede the existing SIP-approved Clark County NSR
program under section 110(1)").]

EPA does not deny this. See, e.g., Brief for Respondent United States
Environmental Protection Agency in New York v. EPA (filed Oct. 26, 2004)
at 78-79 (estimating that, in practice, "the change in the method for
calculating baseline actual emissions" will allow "a higher baseline"
for a group of non-electric utility sources that account for 3 percent
of the total annual emissions-increases from all existing and new
non-electric utility and electric utility sources in the United States);
id. at 81 ("some small number of facilities may be able to increase
emissions without being subject to NSR under the revised rule when they
would not have been able to do so under the old rule"); EPA,
Supplemental Analysis of the Environmental Impact of the 2002 Final NSR
Improvement Rules (Nov. 21 . 2002), at 14 ("the actual-to-projected
actual test would reduce the number of sources who would need to take
permit limits"). Accord New York v. EPA, 413 F .3d at 28 ("EPA
acknowledges that fewer changes will trigger NSR under the 2002 rule
than under the 1980 rule"). Cf. 70 Fed. Reg. at 36903/2 ("Ohio is
correct that its rule revisions do not increase the total amount of
allowable time of excess capacity (i.e. opacity between 20 and 60
percent), nor do the revisions alter the 60 percent opacity cap.
However, the revised rules allow excess opacity on occasions that excess
capacity is currently prohibited, without any compensating prohibition
of emissions that are currently allowed.") (emphasis in original).

The above-listed provisions in Ohio's revised permit program track those
2002 rule provisions, see, e.g., 70 Fed. Reg. at 24739/2 ("This section
of the Ohio permit to install rules regarding PAL applicability is
consistent with 40 C .F.R. 51 .166(w) and 40 C.F.R. 51 .165(f)."), just
as Ohio's preexisting permit program tracked EPA's preexisting rules.

State plans like Ohio's currently do not guard against the new emissions
increases allowed by the weakened permit provisions. See Brief of
Government Petitioners (Attachment 17) at 21-24, 44-47; Reply Brief of
Government Petitioners (Attachment 19) at 6, 9; Abt. Associates, Nucor
Steel Analysis (Attachment 1); Abt. Associates, Mobile Joliet Analysis
(Attachment 2); Environmental Integrity Project, Bright Lines or
Loopholes? (Attachment 3); Affidavit of Craig A. Wright (Attachment 4);
Affidavit of Dr. Iclal Atay (Attachment 5); Affidavit of Marc Allen
Robert Cone, P.E. (Attachment 6); National Academy of Public
Administration, A Breath of Fresh Air (Attachment 7); General Accounting
Office, EPA Should Use Available Data to Monitor the Effects of Its
Revisions to the New Source Review Program (Attachment 9); Connecticut,
et al. Reconsideration Comments (Attachment 11) ; Delaware
Reconsideration Comments (Attachment 12); Environmental Integrity
Project Letter to EPA (Attachment 13); William R. Moomaw, Assessment of
"Reform or Rollback? " (Attachment 14); Environmental Integrity Project,
Additional Results and Corrections (Attachment 15).

EPA does not deny this either. See, e.g., Brief for Respondent United
States Environmental Protection Agency in New York v. EPA at 77 ("State
SIPs must include whatever provisions are necessary to ensure that
sources do not contribute significantly to nonattainment in other
States. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(D) . EPA may enforce this requirement by
compelling States to modify SIPs that are inadequate.") (emphasis
added).

As it is revised by the above-listed provisions, then, Ohio's plan
"allows emissions that are prohibited by the current SIP." 70 Fed. Reg.
at 36903/3 . Ohio nevertheless has made no "demonstration that the
emissions that are allowed by its revised rule but are prohibited by the
current SIP would not interfere with attainment or other applicable
requirements." Id. Indeed, EPA does not propose to find that Ohio has
made such a demonstration. See 70 Fed. Reg. at 4735/3-39/3. Instead, EPA
proposes to approve the above-listed Ohio provisions on the basis of its
finding that those provisions are consistent with the parallel ones
found in the agency's 2002 rule. See, e.g., id. at 24739/2 ("This
section of the Ohio permit to install rules regarding PAL applicability
is consistent with 40 C.F.R. 51 .166(w) and 40 C.F .R. 51 .165(f) .
Therefore we propose to approve this rule.").

But EPA has never made, or even proposed to make, a finding that
revising Ohio's permit provisions so that they track the non-vacated
provisions of the 2002 rule "would not interfere with attainment or
other applicable requirements." 70 Fed. Reg. at 36903/3. The most the
agency has been able to assert (without any substantiation whatsoever)
is that "implementation of the 2002 rule" as a whole (i.e., before large
portions of it were vacated) will be "environmentally beneficial, or at
worst, neutral" on a national scale. Brief for Respondent United States
Environmental Protection Agency in New York v. EPA at 76.

Neither Ohio nor EPA has analyzed the particular impact of each part of
the rule, much less the particular impact that each part's adoption by
Ohio would have on that state's compliance with the requirements that it
provide for attainment, prohibit emissions that interfere with
attainment or maintenance, and require reasonable further progress
toward expeditious attainment. See 42 U .S.C. §§ 7410(a)(2)(C),
7410(a)(2)(D)(i), 7501(1), 7502(a)(2)(A)-(B), 7502(c)(1) 7502(c)(2).
This despite the D.C. Circuit's observation that the "invalidation of
portions of the new rule may affect [the rule's] overall environmental
impact as compared to the old rule," New York v. EPA, 413 F .3d at 43,
and despite the court's corresponding admonishment:

In light of our vacatur of the Clean Unit and PCP portions of the 2002
rule, . . . on which EPA relied in concluding that "collectively, the
five NSR [provisions in the 2002 rule] will improve air quality,"
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS at 2, there is a heightened need for EPA
to have sufficient data to confirm that the remaining portions of the
2002 rule do not result in increased emissions that harm air quality and
public health.

Id. at 30-31.

Indeed, EPA cannot make a finding that revising Ohio's permit provisions
so that they track the non-vacated provisions of the 2002 rule "would
not interfere with attainment or other applicable requirements," 70 Fed.
Reg. at 36903/3, because the opposite is plainly true. See NRDC, et al.,
Petition for Reconsideration of 2003 NSR Rule (Attachment 22) at 7 ("NSR
serves as a key component of the statutory program for attaining
health-based air quality standards – an objective the Supreme Court
has described as the `heart' of, and `central' to, the Act.") (quoting
Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S . 60, 66 (1975)); Petition for Reconsideration of
American Lung Association, et al. (Attachment 8) at 1-93;
Reconsideration Comments of NRDC, et al. (Attachment 10) at 3-17, 19-27;
Final Opening Brief of Environmental Petitioners (Attachment 16) at
11-33, 45-47; Brief of Government Petitioners (Attachment 17) at 16-35,
44-47, 51-53; Final Reply Brief of Environmental Petitioners (Attachment
18) at 2-16, 21-23; Reply Brief of Government Petitioners (Attachment
19) at 2-15, 21-26 ; Abt. Associates, Nucor Steel Analysis (Attachment
1); Abt. Associates, Mobile Joliet Analysis (Attachment 2);
Environmental Integrity Project, Bright Lines or Loopholes? (Attachment
3); Affidavit of Craig A. Wright (Attachment 4); Affidavit of Dr. Iclal
Atay (Attachment 5) ; Affidavit of Marc Allen Robert Cone, P.E.
(Attachment 6); National Academy of Public Administration, A Breath of
Fresh Air (Attachment 7); General Accounting Office, EPA Should Use
Available Data to Monitor the Effects of Its Revisions to the New Source
Review Program (Attachment 9); Connecticut, et al. Reconsideration
Comments (Attachment 11) ; Delaware Reconsideration Comments (Attachment
12); Environmental Integrity Project Letter to EPA (Attachment 13);
William R. Moomaw, Assessment of "Reform or Rollback?" (Attachment 14);
Environmental Integrity Project, Additional Results and Corrections
(Attachment 15).

Therefore, finalizing the EPA rulemaking proposal at issue here would
violate section 110(1) of the Act. See 70 Fed. Reg. 35946, 35956/1 (June
21, 2005) ("[T]he State has not made a demonstration under section
110(1) of the CAA that the conversion of the vehicle I/M program in the
Cincinnati area (and in the Dayton area) to a contingency measure will
not interfere with attainment of the affected NAAQS or with compliance
with other requirements of the CAA. Therefore, we cannot approve, at
this time, the State's request to make vehicle I/M a contingency measure
in the Cincinnati area 1-hour ozone maintenance plan.") ; id at 35951/2
("EPA must complete rulemaking finding that . . . section 110(1) of the
CAA ha[s] been satisfied before Ohio discontinues the E-Check program
and converts E-Check to contingency measures in the ozone maintenance
plans for the Cincinnati and Dayton areas.") ; id. at 36949/3-50/1 ("We
are deferring this discussion until we review Ohio's section 110(1)
demonstrations of non-interference with attainment of other NAAQS and
with compliance with the requirements of the CAA for this area. Through
that future rulemaking, the public will be given an opportunity to
review and comment on Ohio's new emission projections for 2010 and 2015
.") ; id. at 35954/2 ; id. at 35955/2; id. At 35955/3; id. at 35958/2 .
See also 70 Fed. Reg. 46127, 46128/2 (Aug. 9, 2005) (in part because
"the revised [Ohio] rules provide modified approaches to regulating
fugitive emissions from roadways, parking areas, and storage piles for
the Ford Motor Company and ISG facilities," EPA "deferred rulemaking on
the Cleveland area emission limits pending receipt of a further
assessment of the impact of the revisions on attainment of the annual
air quality standard for particles 10 microns and smaller, known as
PMI0.") ; id. at 46129/1 ("revised. emission estimate is necessary" for
Ohio's modified regulation of "the ISG facility's storage piles,"
because the revised rules do not have "equivalent stringency as the
former rules") .

Response:  Section 110(l) of the CAA states that “[t]he Administrator
shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress … or any other applicable requirement of this
chapter.”  CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(l).

In “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; NSR; State of
Nevada, Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental
Management,” 69 Fed. Reg. 54006 (Sept. 7, 2004), the EPA stated that
section 110(l) does not preclude SIP relaxations.  The Agency stated
that Section 110(l) only requires that the “relaxations not interfere
with specified requirements of the Act including requirements for
attainment and reasonable further progress,” and that therefore, a
state can relax its SIP provisions, if it is able to show that it can
“attain or maintain the NAAQS and meet any applicable reasonable
further progress goals or other specific requirements.”  69 Fed. Reg.
at 54011-12.

The Ohio Proposed NSR Reform Rules track the federal NSR Reform Rules,
and EPA previously determined that the implementation of the federal NSR
Reform Rules will be environmentally beneficial.  (See 68 Fed. Reg. at
44620 and 63021).  The EPA’s Supplemental Analysis for the federal NSR
Reform Rules estimated that there are likely to be reductions in
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to the use of PALs.  A
quantitative methodology was applied in the Supplemental Analysis to
three industrial categories, concluding that 3,400 to 17,000 tons of VOC
emission reduction per year were likely nationwide in just these
categories.  The three industrial categories selected were Automobile
Manufacturing (SIC 3711), Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (SIC 2834), and
Semiconductor Manufacturing (SIC 3674).  These were chosen based on the
Flexible Permit Pilot Evaluation Report  that concluded facilities in
these source categories were likely to adopt a PAL because of frequent
operational, time-sensitive changes, and because of opportunities for
economical air pollution control measures.  Although Ohio has minimal
pharmaceutical manufacturing or semiconductor manufacturing, it does
have several automobile manufacturing facilities which may take
advantage of the PAL option under the federal NSR Reform Rules.  The
Supplemental Analysis determined that 50-75% of the Automotive
Manufacturing facilities would seek a PAL and each of facility would
reduce its emissions by 10-33%.  The following tables evaluate the
potential affects of a PAL in the automobile manufacturing sector in
Ohio.

Facility Name	VOC (tpy)

HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING  INC	1,606.96

HONDA OF AMERICA   EAST LIBERTY PLANT	456.09

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP	413.98

FORD MOTOR COMPANY - OHIO ASSEMBLY PLANT	679.15

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION - MORAINE ASSEMBLY	676.14

KENWORTH TRUCK COMPANY	164.60

GM NAO/SCG LORDSTOWN ASSEMBLY	1,791.59

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP	503.78

If 75% of Ohio’s Automotive Manufacturing sources take a PAL

10% VOC Reduction	433.61 VOC in tpy

33% VOC Reduction	1430.9 VOC in tpy

If 50% of Ohio’s Automotive Manufacturing sources take a PAL

10% VOC Reduction	231.52 VOC in tpy

33% VOC Reduction	764.00 VOC in tpy

	10% reduction at largest single source	179.16 VOC in tpy

33% reduction at largest single source	591.22 VOC in tpy

Using the same methodology used in the Supplemental Analysis to assess
the emissions benefits of the Ohio’s NSR Reform Rules in Ohio as EPA
used to assess the benefits nationally, we conclude that the PAL option
would result in a net reduction of between 179.16 and 1430.9 tons of VOC
per year.

It is more difficult to assess the environmental impacts of the
actual-to-projected-actual test and the “2 in 10” baseline
provisions.  The Supplemental Analysis determined that there is a slight
national environmental benefit brought about by these NSR reform
provisions.  However, in Ohio, sources undergoing construction which are
not subject to the best available control technology or lowest
achievable emission reduction NSR requirements will need to comply with
Ohio’s best available technology provisions under Ohio Administrative
Code 3745-31-05(A)(3).

Overall, we expect changes in air quality as a result of implementing
PALs, actual-to-projected-actual test and the “2 in 10” baseline
provisions in Ohio to be somewhere between neutral and providing modest
contribution to RFP.  Accordingly, EPA determines that these changes
will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of
the CAA.

Comment:  C. The Same Provisions in Ohio's Submission Violate Section
193 in Part D.

The same Ohio provisions discussed in part I.B., supra, violate the
Clean Air Act's part D, section 193 ban on "backsliding" in
nonattainment areas.

Section 193 declares, in part, that

No control requirement in effect . . . before November 15, 1990, in any
area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified
after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

42 U.S.C. § 7515.

[Please note: In New York v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit dismissed as unripe
the government petitioners' claim that EPA's promulgation of the 2002
NSR rule violated section 193, on the grounds that EPA had not yet taken
action on any state regulations promulgated in response to that rule.
413 F.3d at 42. EPA is attempting to take such action now, in this
rulemaking.]

NSR is a "control requirement," because it controls emissions increases.
See 67 Fed. Reg. at 80187/2 (Dec. 31, 2002) ("The NSR provisions of the
Act are a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control
technology program requirements for new and modified stationary sources
of air pollution.") (emphasis added); 64 Fed. Reg. 29563-64 (June 2,
1999) (analyzing Rhode Island's state implementation plan revisions,
including changes to NSR applicability requirements, in light of section
193); 58 Fed. Reg. 10964-65 (Feb. 23, 1993) (Massachusetts' state
implementation plan revision consistent with section 193 because it
would "insure equivalent reductions with Massachusetts' prior NSR
program"); EPA Opening Merits Brief in Chevron, U.SA v. NRDC, S. Ct.
82-1005 (Aug. 31, 1983), 1982 Lexis U.S. Briefs 1005, at n.55 (NSR is
one of the "pollution-control measures" applicable in nonattainment
areas.); 42 U.S .C. §§ 7501(3), 7503(a)(2) (sources subject to NSR
must apply "lowest achievable emission rate," which is a stringent
"emission limitation.") ; id. § 7602(k) (defining "emission limitation"
as "a requirement established by the State or the Administrator which
limits the quantity, rate, or concentration of emissions of air
pollutants on a continuous basis, including any requirement relating to
the operation or maintenance of a source to assure continuous emission
reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational
standard promulgated under this chapter"); id. § 7503(d) ("The State
shall provide that control technology information from permits issued
under this section will be promptly submitted to the Administrator for
purposes of making such information available through the RACTBACT/LAER
clearinghouse to other States and to the general public.") (emphasis
added); id. § 7408(h) (provision entitled "RACT/BACT/LAER

Clearinghouse" provides: "The Administrator shall make information
regarding emission control technology available to the States and to the
general public through a central database. Such information shall
include all control technology information received pursuant to State
plan provisions requiring permits for sources, including operating
permits for existing sources.") (emphasis added); id. § 7503(a)(5)
(requiring an alternatives analysis that considers inter alia the
source's "environmental control techniques"); id. § 7418(a) (requiring
federal facilities to comply  with requirements for "the control and
abatement of air pollution," including "any requirement respecting
permits") ; 1990 House Report at 234 (describing NSR as a "graduated
control program" involving increasingly protective requirements for
higher classifications, and including- as the first three examples of
that control program - provisions relating to NSR); id. at 272
(RACTBACT/LAER clearinghouse is to include inter alia information on
"lowest achievable emission rate control requirements proposed or
adopted in each State") (emphasis added); Lead Industries Assn, Inc. v.
EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1149 n.37 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (referring to measures in
state implementation plans that impose pollution control requirements on
sources).

Moreover, when NSR is triggered, it often achieves emissions reductions.
That is the case for sources in attainment areas, because the
installation of best available control technology reduces a previously
grandfathered unit's emissions below the pre-modification level. It is
especially the case for sources in nonattainment areas. Specifically,
the permitting agency cannot issue an NSR permit unless it determines
that "by the time the source is to commence operation, sufficient
offsetting emissions reductions have been obtained, such that total
allowable emissions from existing sources in the region, from new or
modified sources which are not major emitting facilities, and from the
proposed source will be sufficiently less than total emissions from
existing sources (as determined in accordance with the regulations under
this paragraph) prior to the application for such permit to construct or
modify so as to represent (when considered together with the plan
provisions required under section 7502 of this title) reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 7501 of this title) ." 42 U .S.C. §
7503(a)(1)(A) ; see also id. § 7501(a) (defining "reasonable further
progress" as "such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the
relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be
required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of
the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable
date") ; id. § 7503(c); 1990 House Report at 234 ("Also included in the
graduated control requirements are increasing offset ratios that require
a greater level of pollution reductions from other sources in the
nonattainment area to offset increases in pollution from new sources or
modifications . This program is intended to allow economic growth and
the development of new pollution sources and modifications to continue
in seriously polluted areas, while assuring that emissions are actually
reduced.") (emphasis added). Accord, id. at 244 (explaining NSR
requirements for extreme areas, committee notes that those areas "cannot
afford to miss any opportunity for greater emission reductions")
(emphasis added).

The Ohio provisions identified in part I.B., supra, modify NSR in
several significant respects. Notwithstanding that fact, Ohio has made
no demonstration, and EPA has proposed no finding, that the
modifications ensure "equivalent or greater emissions reductions." 42
U.S.C. § 7515. EPA made no such finding either with respect to any of
the 2002 rule provisions that Ohio's provisions track. Those facts alone
establish that if EPA takes final action on its proposal, the action
will violate section 193. See 64 Fed. Reg. 70652, 70654 (Dec. 17, 1999)
("[T]he language is in fact `extraordinarily rigid' in its requirement
to provide equivalent or greater emission reductions to offset
relaxations to pre-1990 rules. . . . [S]ection 193 unambiguously
requires any relaxations to control requirements or plans in effect
prior to enactment of the CAA amendments of 1990 to be offset by
equivalent or greater emission reductions. The clarity of the statutory
language supported by the legislative history evidences intent by
Congress that relaxations to pre- 1990 requirements should occur only
where compensating strengthening will result in no increase in
emissions.") ; id. at 70656 ("compensating reductions must be
contemporaneous with the relaxation").

Moreover, Ohio cannot make a demonstration of equivalency, and EPA
cannot make such a finding. Because, far from ensuring "equivalent or
greater emission reductions" than Ohio's preexisting permit provisions,
the modifications ensure that emissions will not be reduced as much as
under the preexisting rules. In fact, the modifications allow emissions
to increase in Ohio's nonattainment areas. See 61 Fed. Reg. at 38251
(the rulemaking was intended to "significantly reduce the number and
types of activities" that trigger NSR); Brief of Government Petitioners
(Attachment 17) at 18-26, 26-33, 44-47, 51-53 ; Reply Brief of
Government Petitioners (Attachment 19) at 2-15, 21-23, 25-26; Petition
for Reconsideration of American Lung Association, et al. (May 8, 2003)
(Attachment 8), at 1-93; Reconsideration Comments of NRDC, et al. (Aug.
28, 2003) (Attachment 10), at 3-17, 19-27; Final Opening Brief of
Environmental Petitioners (Attachment 16), at 11-33, 45-47; Final Reply
Brief of Environmental Petitioners (Attachment 18) at 2-16, 21-23; Abt.
Associates, Nucor Steel Analysis (Attachment 1); Abt. Associates, Mobile
Joliet Analysis Attachment 2); Environmental Integrity Project, Bright
Lines or Loopholes? (Attachment 3); Affidavit of Craig A. Wright
(Attachment 4); Affidavit of Dr. Iclal Atay (Attachment 5); Affidavit of
Marc Allen Robert Cone, P.E. (Attachment 6); National Academy of Public
Administration, A Breath of Fresh Air (Attachment 7); General Accounting
Office, EPA Should Use Available Data to Monitor the Effects of Its
Revisions to the New Source Review Program (Attachment 9); Connecticut,
et al. Reconsideration Comments (Attachment 11); Delaware
Reconsideration Comments (Attachment 12); Environmental Integrity
Project Letter to EPA (Attachment 13); William R. Moomaw, Assessment of
"Reform or Rollback?" (Attachment 14); Environmental Integrity Project,
Additional Results and Corrections (Attachment 15).

Indeed, as the government petitioners noted in their opening brief in
New York v. EPA:

EPA has previously taken the position that NSR regulations that increase
industry flexibility are less stringent. For example, in the Duquesne
Light case referenced above, EPA argued that the State's definition of
"actual emissions" was more stringent than EPA's because it limited
industry's flexibility to "look back" to set its baseline for purposes
of calculating emissions reduction credits. See Brief of Respondent EPA
in Duquesne Light Co. v. EPA, 1998 WL 34084103, at 13 (Oct. 26, 1998)
("Pennsylvania's definition is easily recognized as more stringent than
the federal definition."). In support of this argument, EPA cited the
"ten-year lookback" provision of its own 1996 proposed rule as an
example of a regulation that "increases industry flexibility" and
therefore is less stringent. Id. at 19; see also id. at 18 (it is
"self-evident" that a state regulation that prohibits a facility from
using a "bubble" approach in measuring emissions increases is more
stringent than an EPA regulation with the "bubble" concept).

Brief of Government Petitioners (Attachment 17) at 47; see also Reply
Brief of Government Petitioners (Attachment 19) at 22-23 ("See Brief of
EPA in Duquesne Light Co. v. EPA, 1998 WL 34084103 . . . at 13
(`Pennsylvania's [baseline emissions] definition is easily recognized as
more stringent than the federal definition.')").

Therefore, Ohio's modifications violate section 193, and any EPA
approval of those modifications (even a conditional approval) will also
violate section 193. Moreover, because section 193 lies within part D,
the Ohio provisions prevent the permit program in the state's revised
plan from being "as required in parts C and D," id. § 7410(a)(2)(C),
from "meet[ing] the applicable requirements of . . . part C," id. §
7410(a)(2)(J), and from "meet[ing] the applicable requirements of part D
." Id. § 7410(a)(2)(I) . Thus, if EPA approves Ohio's revised plan,
that action will additionally exceed the agency's authority under
section 110(k)(3) and violate section 100(l).

Response:  As the commenters point out, Section 193 of the CAA provides
in part that: “No control requirement in effect ... before November
15, 1990, in any area which is a non-attainment area for any air
pollutant may be modified after November 15, 1990, in any manner unless
the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of
such air pollutant.”  CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7515.

Assuming that section 193 applies to NSR, section 193 does not require
additional emission reductions before this SIP revision is approved.  As
of November 15, 1990, the approved SIP did not contain a major source
NSR program consistent with the requirements of the CAA, which requires
offsets for construction of major sources or major modifications in
nonattainment areas.  The SIP in effect on November 15, 1990 did include
a preconstruction permitting program, but that program did not require
offsets for any sources.  Under Ohio’s new rules, major sources are
subject to permitting requirements that are consistent with current CAA
requirements (while minor sources remain subject to the 1990 permitting
program).  This SIP revision affects only the major source permitting
program.

Thus, even if section 193 does apply to the permitting program in the
SIP as of November 15, 1990, that program did not achieve any "emission
reductions" from major sources because it did not require offsets for
any sources.  It follows that if there were no emission reductions
generated by the 1990 permitting program, then the section 193
requirement to provide "equivalent or greater emission reductions" of
any air pollutant as part of this SIP revision would be satisfied with
no additional reductions.  Furthermore, for the reasons discussed above
with respect to Section 110(l), EPA has found that the net effect of
these changes will be neutral or environmentally beneficial.

Comment:  II. Ohio's Incorporation of EPA's 2003 New Source Review Rule
by Reference

EPA's notice appears to propose to approve Ohio provisions that
incorporate by reference an EPA rule that has been stayed by order of
the D.C. Circuit, as well as a second EPA rule – a related federal
implementation plan ("FIP") rule - that the agency has acknowledged to
be stayed by virtue of the same D.C. Circuit order. Compare 70 Fed. Reg.
at 24738/2 (proposing approval of OAC 3745-31-01 (ZZZZZ)(2)) to Order on
Motions to Stay (Attachment 26) and 69 Fed. Reg. 40274 (July 1, 2004)
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Non-attainment New
Source Review (NSR): Equipment Replacement Provision of the Routine
Maintenance, Repair and Replacement Exclusion; Stay). If EPA approves
those provisions - even conditionally – the action will be a violation
of the D.C. Circuit's order. Additionally, the action will exceed EPA's
authority under section 110(k)(3) of the Act while violating sections
110(l) and 193.

In October 2003, EPA finalized a revision to its NSR rules that would
have significantly expanded the rules' exemption for routine
maintenance, repair, and replacement projects. 68 Fed. Reg. 61247,
61277/2 (Oct. 27, 2003) (revising 40 CFR §51 .165(h)(1)) . Two months
later, EPA promulgated another rule that purported to incorporate the
"equipment replacement provision" ("ERP") exemption directly into FIPs.
68 Fed . Reg. 74483 (Dec. 24, 2003).

Numerous citizens groups and states petitioned for review of the rule in
the D.C. Circuit, New York v. EPA, D.C. Cir. Case No. 03-1380 (and
consolidated cases), and requested that the court stay the rule pending
the outcome of their challenges. See, e.g. ., Environmental Petitioners'
Motion for a Stay Pending Review (Attachment 24). The petitioners argued
that the ERP violated the plain language of the Clean Air Act,
conflicted with its structure and purpose, and would irreparably injure
it members. 1d; see also Environmental Petitioners' Reply in Support of
Stay

Motion (Attachment 25).

The court granted the stay motions, ruling that "[p]etitioners have
demonstrated the irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the
merits required for the issuance of a stay pending review." Order on
Motions to Stay (Attachment 26). Because the FIP rule was issued on the
same day that the court stayed the ERP rule, several states asked EPA to
acknowledge that the court's order invalidated the ERP exemption as it
applied to SIPs and FIPs . Letter from Jared Snyder (Office of the
Attorney of General of New York) to C.J Morris Morris (U.S. Department
of Justice) (Feb. 12, 2004). EPA eventually complied with the request by
stating that the FIP amendments were ineffective because "[t]he terms of
the court order prevented the ERP from coming into effect." 69 Fed. Reg.
at 40274/3; see also id. at 4027/2 (stating that because the Court
stayed the ERP two days before the rule was schedule to take effect,
"the new provisions never became effective") ; Letter from Cynthia J.
Morris (U.S . Department of Justice) to Jared Snyder (Office of the
Attorney of General of New York) (February 20, 2004) (acknowledging the
full scope of the court's stay order).

In spite of the D.C. Circuit's order staying the ERP rule, and in spite
EPA's public acknowledgement that the rule "never became effective,"
Ohio has nevertheless attempted to incorporate the text of the ERP rule
into its SIP. Specifically, Ohio's submission states:

(ZZZZZ) Incorporation by reference. This chapter includes references to
certain matter or materials. The text of the incorporated materials is
not included in the regulations contained in this chapter. The materials
are hereby made a part of the regulations in this chapter. For materials
subject to change, only the specific versions specified in the
regulation are incorporated. Material is incorporated as it exists on
the effective date of this rule. Except for subsequent annual
publication of existing (unmodified) Code of Federal Regulations
compilations, any amendment or revision to a referenced document is not
incorporated unless and until this rule has been amended to specify the
new dates.

(2) Incorporated materials

* * *

(h) 40 CFR 51 .165; "Permit requirements;" . . . 68 FR 61276. Oct. 27
2003: 68 FR 63027, Nov. 7, 2003.

OAC 3745-31-01(ZZZZ)(2)(h) (emphasis added).

In its proposal to approve Ohio's revised plan, EPA simply notes that
"Ohio has also updated and added to the incorporations by reference in
OAC 3745-31-01(ZZZZ)(2). Ohio has added references to 40 CFR 51 .165 . .
. ." 70 Fed. Reg. at 24738/2.

If EPA approves Ohio's incorporation of the ERP rule by reference, as
EPA appears to be proposing to do, that action will violate the D.C.
Circuit's order in New York v. EPA, by giving effect to the stayed ERP
exemption. The approval will also contravene EPA's own final rule
reflecting the court's stay in the Code of Federal Regulations, and run
afoul of the agency's accompanying interpretation of the effect of the
stay on the PSD FIP in various SIPs. See generally 69 Fed. Reg. at 40274
et seq.

Moreover, Ohio's incorporation of the ERP rule by reference prevents the
state's revised implementation plan from "meet[ing] applicable
requirements" of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 7410(k)(3). It also
causes the revised plan to "interfere with [] applicable requirement[s]"
of the Act, id. § 7410(1), and to violate outright the Act's
proscription against "backsliding" in nonattainment areas. Id. § 7515.
The Act does not authorize EPA to approve such a plan revision. See id.
§ 7410(k)(3) (authorizing EPA to approve an implementation plan
revision, or portion thereof, that "meets all the applicable
requirements of this chapter") . In fact, the Act prohibits the agency
from doing so. Id. § 7410(1) (EPA "shall not approve a revision of a
plan if the revision would interfere with any . . . applicable
requirement of [the Act]"). Therefore, if EPA approves Ohio's
incorporation of the ERP rule by reference - even conditionally – that
action will be "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, [and]
otherwise not in accordance with law." Id. § 7607(d)(9)(A).

Ohio's incorporation of the ERP rule by reference prevents the state's
revised plan from meeting - and causes the revised plan to interfere
with - the applicable requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
110(a)(2)(I), and 110(a)(2)(J) in the same fundamental way that the
provisions discussed in part I.A., supra, do. Specifically, whereas
sections 165(a), 169(2)(C), 171(4), and 172(a)(5) of the Act apply the
preconstruction permitting requirements to all activities that fall
within section 111(a)(4)'s definition of "modification," id. §§
7475(a) (applying preconstruction permitting provisions to all
"construction"), 7479(2)(C) ("`construction' . . . includes the
modification (as defined in section 7411(a) of this title) of any source
or facility"), 7502(a)(5) ("plan provisions shall require permits for
the construction . . . of new or modified major stationary sources"),
7501(4) ("`modified' mean[s] the same as the term `modification' as used
in section 7411(a)(4) of this title"), the ERP exempts activities that
fall within that statutory definition. See American Lung Association, et
al., Comments on Proposed 2003 NSR Rule (Attachment 21); NRDC, et al.,
Petition for Reconsideration (Attachment 22); NRDC, et al.,
Reconsideration Comments (Attachment 23) ; Environmental Petitioners'
Motion for a Stay Pending Review (Attachment 24); Environmental
Petitioners' Reply in Support of Stay Motion (Attachment 25); Order on
Motions to Stay (Attachment 26); NRDC, et al., Supplemental
Reconsideration Comments (Attachments 27, 30, 31); EPA Office of
Inspector General, Evaluation Report: New Source Review Rule Change
Harms EPA's Ability to Enforce Against Coal-Fired Electric Utilities
(Attachment 28); Joel A. Mintz, "Treading Water" (Attachment 29).

The presence of the ERP rule incorporation in Ohio's revised permit
program thus prevents the state's program from being "as required in
parts C and D," 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a)(2)(C), from "meet[ing] the
applicable requirements of . . . part C," id. § 7410(a)(2)(J), and from
"meet[ing] the applicable requirements of part D." Id. § 7410(a)(2)(1)
. Therefore, EPA will exceed its authority under section 110(k)(3) and
violate section 110(1) if the agency approves Ohio's revised plan.

Ohio's incorporation of the ERP rule also violates the Clean Air Act's
part D, section 193 ban on "backsliding" in nonattainment areas. The ERP
fundamentally modifies NSR. Notwithstanding that fact, Ohio has made no
demonstration, and EPA has proposed no finding, that the modifications
ensure "equivalent or greater emissions reductions." 42 U.S.C. § 7515.
EPA has made no such finding with respect to the ERP either. Those facts
alone establish that if EPA takes final action on its proposal, the
action will violate section 193. See 64 Fed. Reg. 70652, 70654 (Dec. 17,
1999) ("[T]he language is in fact `extraordinarily rigid' in its
requirement to provide equivalent or greater emission reductions to
offset relaxations to pre-1990 rules. . . .[S]ection 193 unambiguously
requires any relaxations to control requirements or plans in effect
prior to enactment of the CAA amendments of 1990 to be offset by
equivalent or greater emission reductions. The clarity of the statutory
language supported by the legislative history evidences intent by
Congress that relaxations to pre-1990 requirements should occur only
where compensating strengthening will result in no increase in
emissions."); id. at 70656 ("compensating reductions must, be
contemporaneous with the relaxation").

Moreover, Ohio cannot make a demonstration of equivalency, and EPA
cannot make such a finding. Because, far from ensuring "equivalent or
greater emission reductions" than Ohio's preexisting permit provisions,
the incorporation of the ERP ensures that emissions will not be reduced
as much as under the preexisting rules. In fact, the modifications allow
emissions to increase in Ohio's nonattainment areas. See American Lung
Association, et al., Comments on Proposed 2003 NSR Rule (Attachment 21);
NRDC, et al., Petition for Reconsideration (Attachment 22); NRDC, et
al., Reconsideration Comments (Attachment 23); Environmental
Petitioners' Motion for a Stay Pending Review (Attachment 24);
Environmental Petitioners' Reply in Support of Stay Motion (Attachment
25); Order on Motions to Stay (Attachment 26); NRDC et al., Supplemental
Reconsideration Comments (Attachments 27, 30, 31); EPA Office of

Inspector General, Evaluation Report: New Source Review Rule Change
Harms EPA's Ability to Enforce Against Coal-Fired Electric Utilities
(Attachment 28); Joel A. Mintz, "Treading Water" (Attachment 29).

Therefore, Ohio's incorporation of the ERP rule violates section 193,
and any EPA approval of that Ohio provision (even a conditional
approval) will also violate section 193. Moreover, because section 193
lies within part D, the Ohio provision prevents the permit program in
the state's revised plan from being "as required in parts C and D," id.
§ 7410(a)(2)(C), from "meet[ing] the applicable requirements of . . .
part C," id. § 7410(a)(2)(J), and from "meet[ing] the applicable
requirements of part D." Id. § 7410(a)(2)(1) . Thus, if EPA approves
Ohio's incorporation of the ERP rule, that action will additionally
exceed the agency's authority under section 110(k)(3) and violate
section 100(1).

Finally, for these same reasons, it is further incumbent upon EPA to
require Ohio to amend its underlying state regulations in order to
eliminate the incorporation by reference of the ERP rule and the related
PSD FIP rulemaking. See OAC 3745-31-01 (ZZZZZ)(2)(h). As a result of
these incorporations, Ohio's state plan is inconsistent with the Clean
Air Act, governing EPA regulations, the D.C. Circuit's stay order, EPA
actions acknowledging the legal consequences of that stay, and even
Ohio's own SIP. In order to correct the legal problems created by the
Ohio Administrative Code's incorporation by reference of federal rules
that are at odds with the Clean Air Act and also the subject to a court
stay, and to ensure that Ohio has legal authority under state law to
carry out its responsibilities to administer the PSD/NSR permitting
programs, Ohio must amend its Code to eliminate these incorporations by
reference. Through these comments, and pursuant to the Clean Air Act and
Administrative Procedures Act, we hereby petition EPA to compel Ohio to
amend its administrative code accordingly.

Response:  EPA responds that in a November 15, 2005 letter, the OEPA
withdrew it’s request for approval of the phrase “68 FR 61276,
Oct.27, 2003:” in OAC 3745-31-01 (ZZZZZ)(2)(h).  EPA is not approving
this section into the SIP.  Furthermore, in the November 15, 2005
letter, OEPA commits to strike this phrase during its next 5-year review
which is expected to be completed by June 2006. On November 20, 2006,
the phrase “68 FR 61276, Oct.27, 2003:” in OAC 3745-31-01
(ZZZZZ)(2)(h) was removed.  The change became effective on December 1,
2006.

 The full report, “Evaluation of Implementation Experiences with
Innovative Air Permits,” is included in the Supplemental Analysis as
Appendix A.

 PAGE

 PAGE   14


[Federal Register: June 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 125)]
[Notices]
[Page 35705-35708]
[DOCID:fr29jn07-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0498; FRL-8137-2]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: There will be a 4-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to
consider and review a set of issues pertaining to the potential for
atrazine to affect amphibian gonadal development.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 9 - 12, 2007, from
approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m, eastern time.
    Comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted
by September 24, 2007 and requests for oral comments be submitted by
October 2, 2007. However, written comments and requests to make oral
comments may be submitted until the date of the meeting. Anyone
submitting written comments after September 24, 2007, should contact
the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. For additional
instructions, see Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Nominations. Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members
of the FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before July
16, 2007.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO) listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the
meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2007-0498, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. Your use of
the Federal eRulemaking Portal to submit comments to EPA electronically
is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
     Mail. Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery. OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0498. If your comments contain any information that you consider
to be CBI

or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instruction before submitting
your comments. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the docket without change and may be made available on-line
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 regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov website 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 regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the 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 a docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web
site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although
listed in a docket 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, is not
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the
electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available

in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Nominations, requests to present oral comments, and requests for
special accommodations. Submit nominations to serve as an ad hoc member
of the FIFRA SAP, requests for special seating accommodations, or
requests to present oral comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph E. Bailey, DFO, Office of
Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail addresses:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

C. How May I Participate in this Meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0498 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be
submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES, no later than September
24, 2007, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and
review the written comments. However, written comments are accepted
until the date of the meeting. Persons wishing to submit written
comments at the meeting should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT and submit 30 copies. Anyone submitting written
comments after September 24, 2007, should contact the DFO listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the extent of
written comments for consideration by FIFRA SAP.
    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages that each individual or
group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their
request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no
later than October 2, 2007, in order to be included on the meeting
agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the
date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of
the FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the
meeting by interested persons who have not previously requested time.
The request should identify the name of the individual making the
presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent,
and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead
projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP
are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have
been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or
her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP
at the meeting.
    3. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be on a
first-come basis.
    4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of the FIFRA
SAP for this meeting. As part of a broader

process for developing a pool of candidates for each meeting, the FIFRA
SAP staff routinely solicits the stakeholder community for nominations
of prospective candidates for service as ad hoc members of the FIFRA
SAP. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified
individuals to be considered as prospective candidates for a specific
meeting. Individuals nominated for this meeting should have expertise
in one or more of the following areas: amphibian ecology/biology,
ecotoxicology, developmental toxicology, endocrine disruption,
statistics and risk assessment methodology. Nominees should be
scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including
training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments on
the scientific issues for this meeting. Nominees should be identified
by name, occupation, position, address, and telephone number.
Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT on or before July 16, 2007. The Agency will
consider all nominations of prospective candidates for this meeting
that are received on or before this date. However, final selection of
ad hoc members for this meeting is a discretionary function of the
Agency.
    The selection of scientists to serve on the FIFRA SAP is based on
the function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the
Agency's charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be
ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory
committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a
Federal department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered
during the selection process include availability of the potential
panel member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of
any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality,
independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of
bias. Although financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack
of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in
disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a
candidate will be selected to serve on the FIFRA SAP. Numerous
qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore,
selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors
including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional
qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific
perspectives on the panel.
    In order to have the collective breadth of experience needed to
address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the Agency anticipates
selecting approximately 10 ad hoc scientists. FIFRA SAP members are
subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch
Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. In
anticipation of this requirement, prospective candidates for service on
the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit confidential financial disclosure
information which shall fully disclose, among other financial
interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and bonds, and where
applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will evaluate the
candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether there are
financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of impartiality
or any prior involvement with the development of the documents under
consideration (including previous scientific peer review) before the
candidate is considered further for service on the FIFRA SAP. Those who
are selected from the pool of prospective candidates will be asked to
attend the public meetings and to participate in the discussion of key
issues and assumptions at these meetings. In addition, they will be
asked to review and to help finalize the meeting minutes. The list of
FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting will be posted on the
FIFRA SAP web site at http://epa.gov/scipoly/sap or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

A. Purpose of the FIFRA SAP

    The FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review
mechanism of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances and is structured to
provide scientific advice, information and recommendations to the EPA
Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-related issues as to the
impact of regulatory actions on health and the environment. The FIFRA
SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in 1975 under FIFRA
that operates in accordance with requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. The FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent panel
consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA Administrator
from nominees provided by the National Institutes of Health and the
National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by the FQPA of 1996,
established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists
who are available to the Scientific Advisory Panel on an ad hoc basis
to assist in reviews conducted by the Panel. As a peer review
mechanism, the FIFRA SAP provides comments, evaluations and
recommendations to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses
made by Agency scientists. Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who
have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and
experience, to provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency.

B. Public Meeting

    EPA conducted an extensive review of open literature and
registrant-submitted studies concerning the potential effects of
atrazine on amphibian gonadal development and concluded in 2003 that
there was sufficient information to hypothesize that atrazine exposure
can result in effects on amphibian gonadal development. EPA also
concluded that there was insufficient evidence to refute or confirm
that hypothesis because the collective studies failed to show that
atrazine produced consistent, reproducible effects across the range of
exposure concentrations and amphibian species tested in the studies.
EPA summarized the studies and its evaluation of the studies in a White
Paper and presented its analysis, conclusions and recommendations to
the SAP during the meeting held on June 17 - 20, 2003.
    The SAP concurred with EPA's interpretation of the available data
and with EPA's recommendations to seek additional data. Additionally,
the SAP concurred with the study approach described in the White Paper
for addressing uncertainties identified in the available studies.
    In response to the uncertainties identified in the White Paper and
based on the recommendations made by the SAP, EPA issued a Data Call-in
Notice (DCI) on November 12, 2004, to Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.
and other atrazine registrants. The DCI required the registrant to
conduct amphibian studies to determine if exposure to atrazine can
affect amphibian gonadal development. Secondary objectives of these
studies were to provide information on the repeatability of previous
observations, develop a sound dose-response relationship, and determine
the developmental sensitivity of the amphibian species that are being
tested.
    On October 9 -12, 2007, EPA will return to the SAP with a second
White Paper discussing the results of the registrant's amphibian
studies conducted in 2005 - 2006. In addition, EPA has continued to
review the open literature studies investigating whether

atrazine exposure affects amphibian gonadal development. For the SAP
meeting, EPA plans to include only those studies published in the open
scientific literature that tested atrazine alone and examined
atrazine's potential effects on amphibian gonadal development. Studies
on mixtures of pesticides that include atrazine as well as studies of
the potential for atrazine to cause adverse effects other than
amphibian gonadal development are not being considered for the SAP
meeting.

C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/
questions to the FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad
hoc members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available
by mid-September. In addition, the Agency may provide additional
background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain
electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related
documents that might be available electronically, at http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP homepage at http://www.epa.gov/

scipoly/sap.
    The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its
recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting.
The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be
obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov
.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 21, 2007.
Clifford J. Gabriel,
Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. E7-12571 Filed 6-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 18033]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP18-708-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 041718 Negotiated Rates--
Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc. H-2275-89 to be effective 4/17/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180417-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-709-000.
    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Tracker Filing--2018 to
be effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180417-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-710-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt
(Newfield 18 to Sequent 1973) to be effective 4/17/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180417-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-711-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Amend No. 1 Neg
Rate Nonconforming Mitsui Co Cameron LNG SP326297 to be effective 3/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 4/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180417-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-712-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Valley Lateral Project Compliance
Filing--CP16-17 to be effective 6/16/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/17/18.
    Accession Number: 20180417-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-713-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt
(Newfield 18 to Sequent 1974) to be effective 4/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20180418-5021.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-714-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Housekeeping Filing April 2018
to be effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20180418-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-715-000.
    Applicants: Centra Pipelines Minnesota Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Updated Shipper Index April
2018 to be effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20180418-5116.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-716-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Request for Waiver and Extensions of El Paso Natural
Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 4/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20180418-5146.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-717-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Clean Up Filing--Volume 2--
Table of Contents to be effective 3/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/18/18.
    Accession Number: 20180418-5235.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

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

    Dated: April 19, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08612 Filed 4-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P