[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 34370]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13517]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM12-3-000]

Revisions to Electric Quarterly Report Filing Process; Notice of
Availability of Video Showing How To File Electric Quarterly Reports
Using the Web Interface

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) is making available on its Web site a video, which shows
how to file Electric Quarterly Reports (EQRs) pursuant to Order No.
770,\1\ using the web interface. Order No. 770 revised the process for
filing EQRs. Pursuant to Order No. 770, one of the new processes for
filing EQRs allows an EQR seller and its agent to file using a web
interface that generally replicates the Commission-distributed software
used currently. A video showing how EQRs can be filed using the web
interface has been posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/eqr.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Revisions to Electric Quarterly Report Filing Process, Order
No. 770, 77 FR 71288 (Nov. 30, 2012), FERC Stats. & Regs.
[Regulation Preambles] ] 31,338 (cross-referenced at 141 FERC ]
61,120) (Nov. 15, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any comments or questions concerning the video may be directed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include ``EQR Video'' in the subject line of any
such email.
    We encourage all EQR filers to subscribe to our EQR RSS Feed to
stay up-to-date on all updates.

    Dated: May 31, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-13517 Filed 6-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 155)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45169-45172]
[DOCID:fr13au07-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0956; FRL-8452-3]

Determination of Attainment, Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Redesignation of the Dayton-Springfield 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted
a request on November 6, 2006, and supplemented it on November 29,
2006, December 4, 2006, December 13, 2006, January 11, 2007, March 9,
2007, March 27, 2007, and May 31, 2007, for redesignation of the
Dayton-Springfield, Ohio area (Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery
Counties) to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. On June 20,
2007, EPA proposed to approve this submission. EPA provided a 30-day
review and comment period. The comment period closed on July 20, 2007.
EPA received one comment in favor of redesignation from the Dayton area
Regional Air Pollution Control Agency. Today, EPA is approving Ohio's
request and the associated plan for continuing to attain the standard.
As part of this action, EPA is making a determination that the Dayton-
Springfield area has attained the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). This determination is based on three years of
complete, quality-assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the
2004-2006 ozone seasons that demonstrate that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
has been attained in the area. Preliminary 2007 air quality data show
that the area continues to attain the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
approving the maintenance plan for this area and is redesignating the
area to attainment. Finally, EPA is approving, for purposes of
transportation conformity, the motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs)
for the years 2005 and 2018.

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0956. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed in the index,

some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (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 either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen
D'Agostino, Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the following, whenever ``we,'' ``us,''
or ``our'' are used, we mean the United States Environmental Protection
Agency.

Table of Contents

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?
III. What Are Our Final Actions?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. What Is the Background for This Rule?

    The background for today's action is discussed in detail in EPA's
June 20, 2007, proposal (72 FR 33937). In that rulemaking, we noted
that, under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 8-hour ozone
standard is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations is less than
or equal to 0.08 ppm. (See 69 FR 23857 (April 30, 2004) for further
information). The data completeness requirement is met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%,
and no single year has less than 75% data completeness, as determined
in accordance with Appendix I of part 50.
    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA may redesignate nonattainment
areas to attainment if sufficient complete, quality-assured data are
available to determine that the area has attained the standard and that
it meets the other CAA redesignation requirements in section
107(d)(3)(E).
    The Ohio EPA submitted a request on November 6, 2006 and
supplemented it on November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006, December 13,
2006, January 11, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and May 31,
2007, for redesignation of the Dayton-Springfield area (Clark, Greene,
Miami, and Montgomery Counties) to attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard. The request included three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2004 through 2006, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS
for ozone had been achieved. The June 20, 2007 proposed rule provides a
detailed discussion of how Ohio met this and other CAA requirements.
    On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA's Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the 8-
hour Ozone Standard. (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). South Coast Air
Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006). On June
8, 2007, in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No.
04-1201, in response to several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit
clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those
parts of the rule that had been successfully challenged. Therefore, the
Phase 1 Rule provisions related to classifications for areas currently
classified under subpart 2 of Title I, part D of the CAA as 8-hour
nonattainment areas, the 8-hour attainment dates, and the timing for
emissions reductions needed for attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
remain effective. The June 8 decision left intact the Court's rejection
of EPA's reasons for implementing the 8-hour standard in certain
nonattainment areas under subpart 1 in lieu of subpart 2. By limiting
the vacatur, the Court let stand EPA's revocation of the 1-hour
standard and those anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase 1 Rule that
had not been successfully challenged. The June 8 decision reaffirmed
the December 22, 2006, decision that EPA had improperly failed to
retain four measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations: (1) Nonattainment area
New Source Review (NSR) requirements based on an area's 1-hour
nonattainment classification; (2) Section 185 penalty fees for 1-hour
severe or extreme nonattainment areas; (3) measures to be implemented
pursuant to section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9) of the CAA, contingent on an
area not making reasonable further progress toward

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, or for failure to attain that NAAQS;
and (4) certain transportation conformity requirements for certain
types of federal actions. The June 8 decision clarified that the
Court's reference to conformity requirements was limited to requiring
the continued use of 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets until 8-
hour budgets were available for 8-hour conformity determinations.
    For the reasons set forth in the proposal, EPA does not believe
that the Court's rulings alter any requirements relevant to this
redesignation action so as to preclude redesignation, and do not
prevent EPA from finalizing this redesignation. EPA believes that the
Court's December 22, 2006, and June 8, 2007, decisions impose no
impediment to moving forward with redesignation of this area to
attainment, because even in light of the Court's decisions,
redesignation is appropriate under the relevant redesignation
provisions of the CAA and longstanding policies regarding redesignation
requests.
    With respect to the requirement for transportation conformity under
the 1-hour standard, the Court in its June 8 decision clarified that
for those areas with 1-hour motor vehicle emissions budgets in their
maintenance plans, anti-backsliding requires only that those 1-hour
budgets must be used for 8-hour conformity determinations until
replaced by 8-hour budgets. To meet this requirement, conformity
determinations in such areas must comply with the applicable
requirements of EPA's conformity regulations at 40 CFR part 93.

II. What Comments Did We Receive on the Proposed Action?

    EPA provided a 30-day review and comment period. The comment period
closed on July 20, 2007. We received one comment in favor of
redesignation from the Dayton area Regional Air Pollution Control
Agency.

III. What Are Our Final Actions?

    EPA is taking several related actions for the Dayton-Springfield
area. First, EPA is making a determination that the Dayton-Springfield
area has attained the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is also approving the
State's request to change the legal designation of the Dayton-
Springfield area from nonattainment to attainment of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Further, EPA is approving Ohio's maintenance plan SIP revision
for the Dayton-Springfield area (such approval being one of the CAA
criteria for redesignation to attainment status). Finally, for the
Dayton Springfield area, EPA is approving 2005 MVEBs of 29.19 tpd of
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and 63.88 tpd of Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) and 2018 MVEBs of 14.73 tpd of VOCs and 21.42 tpd of
NOX.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds that there is good
cause for these actions to become effective immediately upon
publication. This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary
due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the
area from certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it.
The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction,'' and section
553(d)(3) which allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to
adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect.
Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory requirements
such that affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule
takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the State of planning
requirements for these 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. For these
reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for these
actions to become effective on the date of publication of these
actions.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Redesignation of an area to attainment under
section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act does not impose any new
requirements on small entities. Redesignation is an action that affects
the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new
regulatory requirements on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Redesignation is an action that merely affects the status of
a geographical area, and does not impose any new requirements on
sources, or allows a state to avoid adopting or implementing additional
requirements, and does not alter the relationship or distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an
action that affects the status of a geographical area but does not
impose any new requirements on sources. Thus, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 12, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to force its requirements. (See Section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile
organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: August 1, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
Parts 52 and 81, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart 1885--Ohio

0
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (ff)(7) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1885  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ff) * * *
    (7) The Dayton-Springfield area which includes Clark, Greene,
Miami, and Montgomery Counties, as submitted on November 6, 2006, and
supplemented on November 29, 2006, December 4, 2006, December 13, 2006,
January 11, 2007, March 9, 2007, March 27, 2007, and May 31, 2007. The
maintenance plan for this area establishes Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets (MVEB) for 2005 and 2018. The 2005 MVEBs are 29.19 tpd of VOC
and 63.88 tpd of NOX. The 2018 MVEBs are 14.73 tpd of VOCs
and 21.42 tpd of NOX.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Section 81.336 is amended by revising the entry for Dayton-
Springfield, Ohio area: Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties
in the table entitled ``Ohio--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  81.336  Ohio.

                                                              Ohio--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Designation \a\                                             Classification
         Designated area         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                        Type                        Date \1\                        Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Dayton-Springfield, OH:
    Clark County................  August 13, 2007               Attainment.
    Greene County...............
    Miami County................
    Montgomery County...........

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

 [FR Doc. E7-15604 Filed 8-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 24929]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09778]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-56]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; O'Connor
Aerial Videos Editing LLC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before May 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-1928
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Ngo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2016.
James M. Crotty,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2015-1928.
    Petitioner: O'Connor Aerial Videos Editing LLC.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  61.53 and 61.56.
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking to amend
Exemption No. 12236 by requesting relief from the licensed pilot
requirement and the flight review requirement in 14 CFR 61.53
(Condition 13), as well as relief from requiring a VO during
operations, as indicated in Condition 6.

[FR Doc. 2016-09778 Filed 4-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 42 (Monday, March 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 12627]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04234]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022]

Technical Mapping Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical
Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet in person on March 22-23,
2017 in Arlington, Virginia. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The TMAC will meet on Wednesday, March 22, 2017 from 8:00 a.m.-
5:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and Thursday, March 23, 2017
from 8:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting will close
early if the TMAC has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 3101 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, Virginia, 22201. Members of the public who wish to attend
the meeting must register in advance by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Attention: Mark Crowell) by 11:00 p.m. EDT on
Wednesday, March 15, 2017. Members of the public must check in at the
front desk on the ninth floor of 3101 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,
Virginia, 22201 and photo identification is required. For information
on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to
request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed in
For Further Information Contact below as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are
invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by
the TMAC, as listed in the Supplementary Information section below.
Associated meeting materials will be available at www.fema.gov/TMAC for
review by Wednesday, March 15, 2017. Written comments to be considered
by the committee at the time of the meeting must be submitted and
received by Friday, March 17, 2017, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-
0022, and submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: Address the email TO<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
CC<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket number in the subject
line of the message. Include name and contact detail in the body of the
email.
     Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief
Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments
received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for
the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.
    A public comment period will be held on Wednesday, March 22, 2017,
from 4:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT and again on Thursday, March 23, 2017,
from 11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. EDT. Speakers are requested to limit
their comments to no more than three minutes. The public comment period
will not exceed 30 minutes. Please note that the public comment period
may end before the time indicated, following the last call for
comments. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker
by close of business on Friday, March 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Crowell, Designated Federal
Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The TMAC
Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
    As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of
2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1)
How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general
quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood
insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and
milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas
in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a)
flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data
currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing
basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4)
procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping
partners; and (5) (a) methods for improving interagency and
intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk
determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate
budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC
is required to submit an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that
contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an
evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps
and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps;
and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA
Administrator.
    Agenda: During the two-day meeting, TMAC members will discuss the
topics identified for TMAC focus and attention in 2017. This will
include receiving applicable briefings from subject matter experts. The
tasks required to complete the TMAC 2017 Annual Report will be divided
and assigned to various TMAC subcommittees. A brief public comment
period will take place each day during the meeting and will occur prior
to any vote. The full agenda and related briefing materials will be
posted for review by March 17, 2017 at http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    Dated: February 17, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-04234 Filed 3-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

                              2565 Plymouth Road

                    Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2498

											OFFICE OF

										      AIR AND RADIATION

September 29, 2008

MEMORANDUM

FROM:  	Todd Sherwood

Assessment and Standards Division, US EPA

TO:	   	Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0047

SUBJECT:	HDOBD Meetings with Staff of the California Air Resources Board

Meeting Dates

EPA staff met with representatives of CARB on the following days:

May 30, 2008

July 24, 2008

August 6, 2008

EPA Attendees

EPA staff in attendance at some or all of the meetings were:

Byron Bunker

Todd Sherwood

Brian Nelson

Anthony Neam

Hugh Harris

Robert Peavyhouse

Jason Gumbs

CARB Staff Attendees

CARB staff attendance at some or all of the meetings were:

Steve Albu

Mike McCarthy

Mike Reganfuss

Topics Discussed

Topics discussed at meetings were:

Status of EPA’s final rule

Status of CARB’s HDOBD biennial review

Thoughts and considerations for changes to each Agency’s regulations

OBD-specific IRAFs in OBD thresholds

Fuel system monitor

Communication/standardization items

DPF monitor

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  2


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 05/01/2008 10:34 AM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Beck, Nancy"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

"Fraas, Arthur G."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: air-to-blood ratio section

Lydia et al,

How about a short 11:15 am conversation, agenda items below.  Could Zack pls invite Jennifer Seed from OPPTS?  Maria Doa is on travel, but it sounds like Jennifer is available at that time. Perhaps Mike and Charlotte to reach out to Fred, the OPPTS OPEI lead, as appropriate.

Agenda items:

       Lead RRP rule baseline issue (should be quick)

       Tables:  Agreed upon edits in Tbl 1 are not reflected in the version we rec’d this morning; Tbl 6 looks good

       Dept of Transportation comments – how to resolve

       Ratios

       Timing of next draft for review preamble

       RIA review status

Thanks,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 8:42 AM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Fraas, Arthur G<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

We have talked to Jennifer Seed and Maria Doa at OPPTS.  They agree with the footnote as written.  They are available to talk with you and us at any time.  When would you like to talk?

-----"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote: -----

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Fraas, Arthur G." <EMAIL_ADDRESS> From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Date: 05/01/2008 07:33AM

cc: Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jason Burnett/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

I haven’t heard from OPPTS yet on the LRRP rule language; I’ll keep trying, but if someone else has made contact pls let me know.

Thank you,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:46 AM

To: King, Heidi R.; Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Re: air-to-blood ratio section

We'll plan to discuss this later this morning.

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

  From: "King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>   Sent: 05/01/2008 12:16 AM AST

  To: Lydia Wegman; " Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName" <EMAIL_ADDRESS>   Cc: Tricia Crabtree; Karen Martin; Robert Meyers; Jason Burnett

  Subject: RE: air-to-blood ratio section

Lydia ,

Thank you for this draft.  Two comments:

1.  We failed to note additional or clarified support for the higher ratios.  We remain somewhat uncomfortable with characterizing the science-based support for a ratio of 1:7 as equivalently robust to the science-based support for standards ranging up to 1:6.  I believe we’ll pick up the conversation in the morning.

2.  Questions regarding “reanalysis” and “potentially” on p 4:

More recently, a study of changes in children’s blood Pb levels associated with reduced Pb emissions and associated air concentrations near a Pb smelter in Canada (for children through age six in age) reports a ratio of 1:6 and reanalysis << Did the Agency mean to say additional analysis ??  Our conversation had not left me with the impression that the Hilts dataset has been reanalyzed by the Agency >> of the data by EPA for the initial time period of the study resulted in a ratio of 1:7 (CD, pp. 3-23 to 3-24; Hilts, 2003). [1]   Ambient air and blood Pb levels associated with the Hilts (2003) study range from 1.1 to 0.03 µg/m 3 , and associated population mean blood Pb levels range from 11.5 to 4.7 µg/dL, which are lower than levels associated with the older studies cited in the 1986 Criteria Document (USEPA, 1986).

Sources of uncertainty potentially  << The sentence reads well without “potentially”.  I believe these uncertainties are not potentially related; they were identified by the author as related >> related to air-to-blood ratios obtained from Hilts (2003) study have been identified.

Best regards,

heidi

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 11:25 PM

To: King, Heidi R.; Fraas, Arthur G. :PersonName

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Fw: air-to-blood ratio section

-----Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/30/2008 11:24PM -----

To: Wegman Lydia@EPA

From: Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US

Date: 04/30/2008 10:28PM

Subject: air-to-blood ratio section

Karen Martin, Ph.D.

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

U.S. EPA (C504-06)

Research Triangle Park , NC 27711

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

㜀$␸䠀$葝ᜆ葞ᄲ摧ℏI฀8

:

X

Ê

è

㜀$␸䠀$摧ℏIᨀe temporary shutdown of the facility in 2001, including sampling of a different age group at that time and a shorter time period (3 months) at these lower ambient air Pb levels prior to collection of blood Pb levels. Consequently, EPA calculated an alternate air-to-blood Pb ratio based on consideration for ambient air Pb and blood Pb reductions in the first time period (after opening of the new facility in 1997).


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51170-51172]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20904]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R02-OAR-2015-0509, FRL-9933-01-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated
Facilities; New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
withdraw its approval of a provision of the New York State plan that
implements and enforces the Emission Guidelines for existing sewage
sludge incineration units. This action would withdraw the EPA's
approval of a provision of the State sewage sludge incineration plan
allowing for affirmative defenses of Clean Air Act violations in the
case of malfunctions. No other provision in the State plan would be
affected by this action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2015-0509 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: EPA-R02-OAR-2015-0509, Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air
Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290
Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2015-0509. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change, and may be made available
online at 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 www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the 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. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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
form. Publicly available docket materials are available at
www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866. The EPA requests, if at all possible, that you

contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the docket. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony (Ted) Gardella
(Gardella.anthony@epa.gov), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following table of contents describes
the format for the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section:

I. What action is the EPA proposing today?
II. Which provision of the State sewage sludge incineration (SSI)
plan is EPA withdrawing approval of?
III. Why is the EPA taking this action?
IV. Who is affected by the State SSI plan and the amendment to the
State SSI plan?
V. What is the background for New York State's request to amend the
State SSI plan?
VI. What approval criteria did we use to evaluate New York State's
January 2015 request to amend the State SSI plan?
VII. What is the EPA's conclusion?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing today?

    The EPA is proposing to withdraw its prior approval of an
affirmative defense provision in New York State's SSI plan, based on a
request submitted on January 27, 2015, by New York State. New York
State submitted the State SSI plan for EPA approval on July 1, 2013 to
fulfill the requirements of section 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). The EPA approved the proposed State SSI plan on June 11, 2014
(79 FR 33456). The State SSI plan adopts and implements the emission
guidelines (EG) set forth at Title 40 part 60 subpart MMMM of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) and is applicable to existing SSI units
and establishes air emission limits and other requirements. Existing
SSI units are units constructed on or before October 14, 2010.

II. Which provision of the State SSI plan is EPA withdrawing approval
of?

    New York State is requesting that the EPA withdraw its approval of
a provision in the State SSI plan that allows for an affirmative
defense by an owner/operator of an SSI unit for violations of air
emissions or other requirements of the State's plan in the event of
malfunction(s) of an SSI unit. The EPA's proposed withdrawal of its
prior approval, once finalized and effective, will result in the
removal of the affirmative defense provisions from the federally-
enforceable State SSI plan while maintaining the federal enforceability
of the remainder of the State SSI plan for covered SSI units located in
New York State.

III. Why is the EPA taking this action?

    The EPA has determined that New York State's request that EPA
withdraw approval of the affirmative defense provision in the State SSI
plan meets all applicable requirements and therefore the EPA is
proposing to withdraw its approval of that provision.

IV. Who is affected by the State SSI plan and the amendment to the
State SSI plan?

    The State SSI plan regulates all the units designated by the EG for
existing SSI units and which are located at a wastewater treatment
facility designed to treat domestic sewage sludge. If the owner or
operator of a covered SSI unit made changes after September 21, 2011,
that meet the definition of modification (see 40 CFR 60.5250), the SSI
unit would become subject to 40 CFR part 60 subpart LLLL (New Source
Performance Standards for New Sewage Sludge Incineration Units), and
the State SSI plan would no longer apply to that unit.

V. What is the background for New York State's request to amend the
State SSI plan?

    In an April 18, 2014 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit Court) vacated an
affirmative defense in one of the EPA's Section 112 regulations. NRDC
v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir., 2014) (vacating affirmative defense
provisions in Section 112 rule establishing emission standards for
Portland cement kilns). The court found that the EPA lacked authority
to establish an affirmative defense for private civil suits and held
that under the CAA, the authority to determine civil penalty amounts in
such cases lies exclusively with the courts, not the EPA. The vacated
affirmative defense provision in the EPA's Portland cement MACT rule is
identical to the affirmative defense provision in the EPA's SSI EG,
promulgated on March 21, 2011, under sections 111(d) and 129 of the
CAA, at Sec.  60.5181 (``How do I establish an affirmative defense for
exceedance of an emission limit or standard during a malfunction?'').
New York's State SSI plan adopted by reference all the applicable
requirements of the EPA's SSI EG, including the affirmative defense
provisions at Sec.  60.5181, into its State plan at Part 200 of Title 6
of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (6NYCRR) of the State of
New York, entitled ``General Provisions.''
    Because of the April 2014 D.C. Court vacatur referred to above, New
York State submitted its January 27, 2015 letter requesting that EPA
withdraw its approval of the affirmative defense provision as part of
the State SSI plan submitted to the EPA for approval on July 1,
2013.\1\ Consequently, the EPA is proposing to withdraw its prior
approval of that particular provision of the State SSI plan as
discussed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA has proposed a Federal SSI plan which would apply to SSI
units that are not covered by an approved and effective state plan.
The proposed federal plan does not include an affirmative defense to
violations that result from malfunctions. 80 FR 23402, 23407 (Apr.
27, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What approval criteria did we use to evaluate New York State's
January 2015 request to amend the State SSI plan?

    The EPA reviewed New York State's request against the applicable
requirements of section 129(b)(2) of the CAA. To ensure consistency,
the EPA reviewed New York State's request against the proposed Federal
SSI plan, discussed in footnote 1 of this notice, which does not
include an affirmative defense to violations that result from
malfunctions.

VII. What is the EPA's conclusion?

    The EPA has determined that New York State's SSI plan will continue
to meet all the applicable approval criteria if EPA withdraws its
approval of the affirmative defense provision. First, the removal of
the affirmative defense provision is consistent with the D.C. Circuit's
decision in NRDC v. EPA, as described above. Second, a state plan must
be at least as protective as the emissions guidelines promulgated by
the EPA, and the removal of the affirmative defense provision from the
approved state plan does not render the plan less protective, as it
removes a potential defense to a violation resulting from a
malfunction. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to withdraw its approval
of that provision of the plan, which the EPA approved on June 11, 2014
(79 FR 33456) as part of New York's sections 111(d) and 129 State SSI
plan for existing sewage sludge incineration units.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/
129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing
111(d)/129 plan

submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they
meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The 111(d)/129 plan is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
Nation Land, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride,
Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry,
Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Sulfur acid plants, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: August 13, 2015.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2015-20904 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76293-76294]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29862]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0547; FRL 9903-29-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Performance Evaluation Studies on Wastewater
Laboratories (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Performance Evaluation Studies
on Wastewater Laboratories (Renewal)'' to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through January 31, 2014. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 41926) on July 12,
2013 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 16,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0547, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Krausz, Office of Compliance,
Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, 2227A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
564-0038; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the

Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional information about EPA's
public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA ICR Number: 0234.11.
    OMB Control Number: 2080-0021
    Abstract: Discharge Monitoring Report-Quality Assurance (DMR-QA)
study program participation is mandatory for major and selected minor
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit holders
in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 308. The DMR-QA study
program is designed to evaluate the analytic ability of the
laboratories that perform chemical, microbiological and whole effluent
toxicity (WET) analyses required in the NPDES permits for reporting
results in the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR). Under DMR-QA, the
permit holder is responsible for having their in-house and/or contract
laboratories perform proficiency tests and submit results for grading
by proficiency test (PT) providers. Graded results are transmitted by
either the permittee or PT provider to the appropriate federal or state
NPDES regulatory authority. Permit holders are responsible for
submitting corrective action reports to the appropriate regulatory
authority.
    Form Numbers: EPA Form 6400-01.
    Respondents/affected entities: Major and selected minor permit
holders under the Clean Water Act's National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under Clean Water Act
Section 308(a).
    Estimated number of respondents: 5,509 (total).
    Frequency of response: Major permit holders must participate
annually. Minor permit holders must participate if selected by the
state or EPA DMR-QA coordinator.
    Total estimated burden: 36,361 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4,176,263 (per year), includes $2,376,638
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 5,150 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease in burden hours can be attributed to a
number of states obtaining full or partial waivers from this activity
through agreements with the EPA. Labor costs were revised upward to
take into account employee benefit compensation costs and inflation.
Non-labor costs for obtaining proficiency test samples increased
because of an update to the list of most commonly used analytes, and
due to inflation.

Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-29862 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 140)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42263-42265]
[DOCID:fr21jy08-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0187; FRL-8694-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Section 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002
Base-Year Inventory for the Pike County Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a SIP revision
consisting of a maintenance plan that provides for continued attainment
of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for
at least 10 years after the April 30, 2004, designations, as well as a
2002 base-year inventory for the Pike County Area. EPA is approving the
maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year inventory for the Pike County
Area as revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on August 20, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0187. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.

Although listed in the electronic docket, some information is not
publicly available, i.e., confidential business information (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 either electronically
through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection
during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection,
Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Linden,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On May 27, 2008 (73 FR 30350), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The NPR proposed
approval of Pennsylvania's SIP revision that establishes a maintenance
plan for the Pike County Area that provides for continued attainment of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years after designation, and a
2002 base-year emissions inventory. The formal SIP revisions were
submitted by PADEP on December 17, 2007. Other specific requirements of
Pennsylvania's SIP revision and the rationales for EPA's proposed
actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No
public comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year
inventory for the Pike County Area, submitted on December 17, 2007, as
revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP. EPA is approving the maintenance
plan and 2002 base-year inventory for the Pike County Area because it
meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action.
    This action approving the maintenance plan and the 2002 base-year
inventory for the Pike County Area may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 10, 2008.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. In Sec.  52.2020, the table in paragraph (e)(1) is amended by adding
an entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year
Inventory for Pike County at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable           State                                Additional
            revision                geographic area    submittal date   EPA approval date        explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan     Pike County........        12/17/07  07/21/08. [Insert    ....................
 and 2002 Base-Year Inventory.                                          page number where
                                                                        the document
                                                                        begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-16476 Filed 7-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 152)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47736-47737]
[DOCID:fr09au10-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0428; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-13]

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace, Establishment of Class E
Airspace; Patuxent River, MD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class D and E airspace at
Patuxent River Naval Air Station (NAS), Patuxent River, MD, to reflect
the part-time operating status of the control tower and establish Class
E airspace designated as surface areas to accommodate the additional
airspace needed for the Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs)
developed for the airport. This action would enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at Patuxent
River NAS, Patuxent, MD.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before September 23,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2010-0428; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-13, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melinda Giddens, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule 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-2010-0428; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-13) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://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 Docket
No. FAA-2010-0428; Airspace Docket No. 10-AEA-13.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. 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 from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/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 the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class D airspace and Class E
airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area at Patuxent
River NAS, Patuxent River, MD, to reflect the part-time operations of
the airport control tower, establishing in advance the dates and times
by a Notice to Airmen, and establish Class E airspace designated as
surface areas to provide controlled airspace required to support the
SIAPs developed for Patuxent River NAS.
    Class D airspace designations, Class E surface airspace
designations and Class E airspace designations as extensions to a Class
D surface area are published in Paragraph 5000, 6002, and 6004
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and
effective September 15, 2009, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.
    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 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, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    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 proposed 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 airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would amend Class D and existing Class E
airspace and establish Class E airspace designated as surface areas at
Patuxent River NAS, Patuxent River, MD.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed August 27, 2009, effective September 15, 2009,
is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA MD D Patuxent River, MD [Amended]

Patuxent River NAS (Trapnell Field), MD
    (Lat. 38[deg]17'30'' N., long. 76[deg]24'59'' W.)
Chesapeake Ranch Airpark, MD
    (Lat. 38[deg]21'40'' N., long. 76[deg]24'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,500 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of Patuxent River NAS
(Trapnell Field) and within a .5-mile radius of Chesapeake Ranch
Airpark excluding that airspace within Restricted Areas R-4005 and
R-4007 when active. This Class D airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport Facility Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AEA MD E2 Patuxent River, MD [New]

Patuxent River NAS (Trapnell Field), MD
    (Lat. 38[deg]17'30'' N., long. 76[deg]24'59'' W.)
Patuxent VORTAC
    (Lat. 38[deg]17'16'' N., long. 76[deg]24'01'' W.)
Patuxent River NDB
    (Lat. 38[deg]17'09'' N., long. 76[deg]24'11'' W.)
Chesapeake Ranch Airpark, MD
    (Lat. 38[deg]21'40'' N., long. 76[deg]24'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.5-
mile radius of Patuxent River NAS (Trapnell Field) and within 1.8
miles each side of the Patuxent VORTAC 045[deg] radial extending
from the 4.5-mile radius of Patuxent River NAS to 6.1 miles
northeast of the VORTAC; and within 1.8 miles each side of the
Patuxent VORTAC 235[deg] radial extending from the 4.5-mile radius
to 6.6 miles southwest of the VORTAC; and within 1.8 miles each side
of the Patuxent River NDB 233[deg] bearing extending from the 4.5-
mile radius to 6.1 miles southwest of the NDB; and within 1.8 miles
each side of the Patuxent VORTAC 140[deg] radial extending from the
4.5-mile radius to 10.5 miles southeast of the VORTAC; and within a
.5-mile radius of Chesapeake Ranch Airpark, excluding that airspace
within Restricted Areas R-4005 and R-4007 when active. This Class E
airspace area is effective during those times when the Class D
airspace is not in effect.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D Surface Area.

* * * * *

AEA MD E4 Patuxent River, MD [Amended]

Patuxent River NAS (Trapnell Field), MD
    (Lat. 38[deg]17'30'' N., long. 76[deg]24'59'' W.)
Patuxent VORTAC
    (Lat. 38[deg]17'16'' N., long. 76[deg]24'01'' W.)
Patuxent River NDB
    (Lat. 38[deg]17'09'' N., long. 76[deg]24'11'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles
each side of the Patuxent VORTAC 045[deg] radial extending from the
4.5-mile radius of Patuxent River NAS (Trapnell Field) to 6.1 miles
northeast of the VORTAC; and within 1.8 miles each side of the
Patuxent VORTAC 235[deg] radial extending from the 4.5-mile radius
to 6.6 miles southwest of the VORTAC; and within 1.8 miles each side
of the Patuxent River NDB 233[deg] bearing extending from the 4.5-
mile radius to 6.1 miles southwest of the NDB; and within 1.8 miles
each side of the Patuxent VORTAC 140[deg] radial extending from the
4.5-mile radius to 10.5 miles southeast of the VORTAC, excluding
that airspace within Restricted Areas R-4005 and R-4007 when active.
This Class E airspace area is effective during specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport Facility Directory.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 30, 2010.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2010-19583 Filed 8-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P