[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71029-71033]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29245]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1035; FRL-9229-2]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS: ``Interference With Maintenance'' Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Colorado on June 18, 2009.
Specifically, EPA is approving the portions of the ``State of Colorado
Implementation Plan to Meet the Requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA)
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport Regarding the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard'' addressing the ``interference with maintenance''
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by any other state. The
``interference with maintenance'' requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibits a state's emissions from interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state. This action is being taken
under section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective December 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1035. 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, e.g., 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 Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at
all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words Colorado and State mean the State of Colorado.

Table of Contents

I . Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new standards for 8-hour ozone
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). This action is being
taken in response to the July 18, 1997 revision to the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This action does not address the requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, or the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS; those standards will be addressed in a later action.
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to
address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs must address,
as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which pertains to
interstate transport of certain emissions. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of
the CAA requires that a state's SIP must contain adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will: (1)
Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other
state; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS by any other state;
(3) interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality; or (4) interfere with any
other state's required measures to protect visibility.
    On June 18, 2009 the State of Colorado submitted a SIP addressing
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements (1) and (2), noted above,
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The state based its submittal on EPA's
2006 Guidance discussed below. As noted earlier, in this rulemaking EPA
is addressing the requirement that pertains to preventing sources in
the State from emitting pollutants in amounts which will interfere with
the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by any other state.
    On August 15, 2006, EPA issued its ``Guidance for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2006
Guidance) for SIP submissions that states should use to

address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA developed this
guidance to make recommendations to states for making submissions to
meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In a Federal Register action dated September 17, 2010, EPA proposed
approval of the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP portions addressing
the interference with maintenance requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA concluded in its proposed action that the
various factual and technical considerations supported a determination
that emissions from Colorado do not interfere with maintenance by any
states with areas at risk for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA did not receive comments that persuade the Agency that there
is such interference, and thus in today's final action EPA is making a
final regulatory determination that Colorado emissions sources do not
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other
state.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received one letter dated October 18, 2010 with comments from
the WildEarth Guardians (WG) environmental organization. The WG letter
includes three separate comments under sections A., B., and C., and is
accessible online at regulations.gov under Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-2007-
1035. Later in this section EPA responds to the significant comments
made by the commenter. WG clarifies in its introductory remarks on the
letter's first page that its comments are directed to both the Colorado
and the North Dakota Federal Register proposed rule actions of
September 17, 2010 (75 FR 56935 and 75 FR 56928) because ``EPA's
rationale for approving both SIPs is the same.'' EPA will consider WG's
comments, as appropriate, equally applicable to the referenced EPA
proposed rule actions. For clarity, however, in this action EPA will
address WG's comments as if they were directed only to the proposed
rule action for Colorado (75 FR 56935).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Similarly, in our response to the same WG comments in our
action finalizing the proposed rule action of September 17, 2010 for
the North Dakota ``interference with maintenance'' requirement, we
address WG's comments as if they were directed to the proposed rule
action for North Dakota (75 FR 56928).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment No. 1--In its comments under section A., ``Maintenance is
Inappropriately Defined,'' WG states that EPA's definition of
interference with maintenance, and by implication the identification of
maintenance receptors, appeared to be ``inappropriately conflated with
the definition of nonattainment.'' It argues that the definition of
maintenance appeared to be tied to nonattainment, asserting that
``unless an area has violated or is in violation of the NAAQS, the
agency will not consider whether * * * Colorado [is] interfering with
that area's ability to maintain compliance with the NAAQS.'' For this
reason, WG argues EPA did not give independent meaning to the interfere
with maintenance prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
    EPA Response--The methodology EPA used to identify maintenance
receptors gives independent meaning to the term ``interfere with
maintenance'' and establishes a process to identify projected
attainment receptors that, based on the historic variability of air
quality at that site (which may be due to variability in emissions and/
or meteorology), may have difficulty maintaining the standard. As
explained in greater detail below, the commenter's objection to EPA's
approach appears to be based on the misconception that the methodology
EPA used to identify maintenance sites was dependent on base year NAAQS
violations.
    The definition of maintenance used by EPA is consistent with the
direction given to EPA by the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).\2\ In that case,
the court analyzed the definition of ``interfere with maintenance''
used in the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) rule. The court found that
the definition EPA used ``gave no independent significance to the
`interfere with maintenance' prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
separately identify upwind sources interfering with downwind
maintenance.'' \3\ It further reasoned that ``[u]nder EPA's reading of
the statute, a state can never `interfere with maintenance' unless EPA
determines that at one point it `contribute[d] significantly to
nonattainment'.'' \4\ Based on this analysis, the court found the
definition unlawful, holding that ``[b]ecause EPA describes CAIR as a
complete remedy to a section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) violation and does not
give independent significance to the `interfere with maintenance'
language to identify upwind states that interfere with downwind
maintenance, it unlawfully nullifies that aspect of the statute and
provides no protection for downwind areas that, despite EPA's
predictions, still find themselves struggling to meet NAAQS due to
upwind interference in 2010.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As EPA noted in the proposal, the term ``interfere with
maintenance'' is not defined in the CAA. As such, the term is
ambiguous and EPA's interpretation of that term in this action is
both reasonable and consistent with the text and the overall goals
of the CAA. By this approach, EPA is giving independent meaning to
the term and supporting that interpretation with technical analysis
to apply it to the facts in this action.
    \3\ 531 F.3d at 910.
    \4\ Id.
    \5\ Id. at 910-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The approach used by EPA in its September 17, 2010 proposal to
assess whether emissions from sources in Colorado interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state takes into account the
flaws identified by the court, by giving independent meaning to the
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) ``interference with maintenance'' requirement.
Our September 17, 2010 proposed action relies on a process established
by EPA's August 2, 2010 Transport Rule Proposal to identify any
specific receptors in downwind states that, even though they are
projected to be in attainment and thus would not be nonattainment
receptors, may have difficulty maintaining the NAAQS in question. These
receptors are referred to as maintenance receptors.
    The commenter's statement that EPA's designation of maintenance
receptors is ``firmly hitched to a finding that the maximum design
value based on a single three-year period between 2003 and 2007 is in
excess of the NAAQS'' appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the
methodology used by EPA to identify maintenance receptors. EPA's
methodology did not, as the commenter appears to assume, require a site
to have a design value above the NAAQS for one of the three base
periods (2003-2005, 2004-2006, 2005-2007) to be considered a
maintenance site. The methodology is based on an analysis of the future
year average and future year maximum design values.\6\ It does not
depend on the whether the base year design values exceed the NAAQS. The
Transport Rule Proposal explained that EPA used the average
concentrations of the three design values for the three base periods
noted above to determine the 2012 average design value at monitoring
sites. Monitoring sites with projected average design values above the
NAAQS would be in nonattainment, while those with projected average
design values below the NAAQS would be in attainment in 2012. To
identify among the attainment monitoring sites those at risk for
maintenance of the NAAQS, EPA also projected to 2012 each of the three
design values for the base periods noted

above. If the maximum of the three was above the NAAQS, then monitoring
site was identified as at risk for maintenance of the NAAQS, or as a
``maintenance receptor.'' \7\ The maximum design value referenced in
this sentence is the maximum future design value calculated using each
of the three base design value periods separately. Whether or not one
of the three base period design values exceeded the NAAQS was not a
factor considered in determining whether a site was a maintenance
receptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The process that defines the monitors at risk for
maintenance was summarized in the September 17, 2010 proposed rule
action for the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP (75 FR 56938).
    \7\ 75 FR 45210, at 45246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To better understand this concept, it is useful to compare the
methodologies used in the Transport Rule proposal (75 FR 5210, Aug. 2,
2010) to identify nonattainment and maintenance receptors. In the
Transport Rule proposal, base period (2003-2007) ambient data were
projected to the future (using model outputs) to identify both
nonattainment and maintenance receptors. In both cases, receptors were
identified by projected future design values; however, because more
conservative data were used for the maintenance analysis, this analysis
could identify receptors that were projected by the nonattainment
analysis to be in attainment; yet might have difficulty attaining the
standard due to historic variability of air quality at that site. To
identify future nonattainment sites we calculated the future year
design values by projecting the 5-year weighted average design value
for each site. Only if this future year design value exceeded the NAAQS
was the site considered to be a nonattainment receptor. However, to
identify projected maintenance sites we used a different methodology
that took into account historic variability in air quality at each
receptor. For this approach we calculated the maximum future year
design value by processing each of the three base design value periods
(2003-2005, 2004-2006, and 2005-2007) separately. The highest of the
three future values is the maximum design value, which is used to
determine maintenance receptors.
    In this way, EPA's analysis identifies those areas that are
projected to be attainment, but may have difficulty maintaining
attainment of the standard, for example in a year with particularly
severe meteorology (weather that is conducive to ozone and/or
particulate formation). In other words, this analysis does exactly what
the DC Circuit directed EPA to do in North Carolina. It gives
independent meaning to the ``interfere with maintenance'' prong of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) and provides protection to any areas that, although
they are predicted to attain the standard (and thus upwind sources
could not be found to significantly contribute to nonattainment in that
area) may have difficulty maintaining the standard.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id. at 45246.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA used this same approach to identify any potential maintenance
receptors for purposes of evaluating Colorado's SIP submission. For the
reasons explained above, this approach is both reasonable and
consistent with the direction given to EPA by the DC Circuit in North
Carolina.
    Comment No. 2--In its comments under section B., ``Even Under EPA's
Definition of Maintenance, Maintenance Receptors are not Consistently
Defined,'' WG argues that EPA's approach to evaluating interference
with maintenance is inappropriate because it did not take into account
current high ambient concentrations in certain places. The commenter
thus contends that EPA's identification of maintenance receptors is
inconsistently applied. The commenter identifies several areas that it
believes should have been considered as at risk for maintenance for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. WG specifies the Wasatch Front and Uintah
County in Utah, the Phoenix area in Arizona, portions of western
Wyoming, and San Juan County in New Mexico, as areas appropriate for an
assessment of whether emissions from Colorado interfere with their
difficulty (in the commenter's view) in maintaining the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This comment also argues about the Denver Metropolitan Area/
North Front Range (DMA/NFR) area as at risk for maintenance for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We are examining this part of the comment
within EPA's final rulemaking action for the North Dakota Interstate
Transport SIP, since the issue of the DMA/NFR area as at risk for
maintenance does not affect our September 17, 2010 proposed rule
assessment of whether Colorado's emissions interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS by any other states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA Response--EPA shares the commenter's concern about areas
presently affected by elevated ozone concentrations, but disagrees with
the commenter's assertion that the September 17, 2010, proposed rule
action for the Colorado SIP ``overlooked areas impacted by Colorado
that are projected to barely attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS.'' First, the
underlying issue raised in this comment is substantively the same as
that raised in comment no. 3 below, which argues that EPA's analysis is
faulty because it identifies receptors likely to have difficulty
maintaining the standard in 2012 and not at the present time. EPA's
response to comment no. 3 below illustrates how its approach, based on
modeling analyses that identify receptors at risk for maintenance in
the year 2012, is appropriate and consistent with the D.C. Circuit
decision in North Carolina v. EPA.
    Second, EPA has developed in the Transport Rule Proposal of August
2, 2010 an approach that necessarily requires years of data, and an
analysis that evaluates where there may be difficulties with
maintaining attainment at a specific point in time (in this instance
2012) to evaluate whether there is interference with maintenance to
meet the statutory requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).\10\ To
assist in the evaluation of whether states' emissions interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in western states, EPA has developed,
independent of the Transport Rule Proposal, a modeling analysis using
an approach similar to the Transport Rule Proposal for the
identification of monitors at risk for maintenance of the NAAQS within
a modeling domain that includes the western states. The analysis is
presented in the August 23, 2010 memo, ``Documentation of Future Year
Ozone and Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Western States''
(Western States Design Values).\11\ Because none of the areas of
concern to the commenter was identified by EPA as a maintenance
receptor through that analysis,\12\ it was appropriate for the
September 17, 2010 proposed rule not to assess whether emissions from
Colorado sources impact the areas noted by the commenter, such as
Uintah County and Wasatch Front in Utah, the Phoenix area in Arizona,
portions of western Wyoming, and San Juan County in New Mexico. In
short, based on EPA's analysis, none of the areas named by the
commenter is appropriate for consideration as a maintenance receptor at
this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 75 FR 45210.
    \11\ A memorandum in the docket for this action provides the
information EPA used in order to identify monitors that are
receptors for evaluation of interference with maintenance for
certain states in the western United States. See, Memorandum from
Brian Timin of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Air Quality Modeling Group entitled ``Documentation of Future Year
Ozone and Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Western
States,'' under ``Memorandum to Docket EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1035,'' EPA,
August 23, 2010.
    \12\ Design Values for Western States, EPA (August 23, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also notes that, except for Uintah County, the commenter
provides no specific facts--such as the location of monitoring
receptors, ozone concentrations, or time span during which high ozone
concentrations were monitored--to support its arguments concerning
these areas. Thus, WG has not identified any reasons that EPA

should consider these areas as maintenance receptors, making it
difficult for EPA to address properly WG's concerns about interference
with maintenance in the Wasatch Front, the Phoenix area in Arizona,
portions of western Wyoming, or San Juan County in New Mexico. As for
the commenter's reference to Uintah County, where in February 2010
monitors in Ouray and Red Wash registered ozone concentrations above
120 ppb, EPA notes that the two monitors were installed as recently as
July 2009, and therefore their data does not provide the historical
variability background that is an essential component for the
identification of maintenance receptors.\13\ EPA is concerned about the
ambient levels of ozone in this area, but at present EPA does not have
the necessary years of data to evaluate whether this area is
appropriate for use as a maintenance receptor for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in accordance with the Agency's approach to this requirement.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See above, in EPA Response to Comment No. 1, the
methodology used for the identification of maintenance monitors in
the August 2, 2010 Transport Rule Proposal, and the August 23, 2010
Western States Design Values memo. The monitor in Ouray is
identified as Site ID number 49-047-2003, and in Red Wash as Site ID
number 49-047-2002.
    \14\ EPA notes that the installation and operation expenses for
the Ouray and Red Wash monitoring stations referenced above were
funded by several companies because of court orders resulting from
litigation initiated by EPA, affected states and tribes. See, for
example, the Consent Decree signed by Kerr-McGee Corporation and EPA
on May 8, and May 16, 2007, lodged May 17, 2007, and entered by the
court on March 26, 2008.
    .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment No. 3--In its comment under section C., ``EPA has not
Assessed New Mexico's [sic] Interference with Maintenance in the
Present,'' WG asserts that EPA's analysis ignores whether Colorado is,
at the present, interfering with maintenance in other States. It argues
EPA erred by considering only whether emissions from Colorado will
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in areas that
would be considered ``maintenance receptors'' as of 2012.
    WG argues that this approach is inconsistent with the approach
taken in a previous action regarding significant contribution to
nonattainment in other states (citing 75 FR 33174-90). The commenter
agrees that ``EPA should ensure that Colorado does not interfere with
maintenance or contribute significantly to nonattainment in other
states in the future'' but argues that ``the agency's duties under
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) apply both in the present and the future.''
EPA's approach is flawed, WG concludes, because EPA identifies
maintenance areas likely to exist by 2012 and does not identify
interference with maintenance that currently exists. WG also asserts
that EPA's approach ignores whether Colorado is presently interfering
with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in downwind states.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Before addressing the substantive issues raised in this
comment, we would like to clarify that we presume that the reference
to New Mexico in the comment's title is a clerical error, and that
the commenter intended to refer to either Colorado or North Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA Response--EPA disagrees with the commenter concerning the
evaluation of significant contribution versus interference with
maintenance. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean Air Act requires
that a state SIP ``contain adequate provisions prohibiting * * * any
source or other type of emission activities within the state from
emitting any air pollutants in amount which will contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other state with respect to any [ ] national primary or secondary
ambient air quality standard.''
    In determining the appropriate year to analyze to determine whether
emissions from Colorado will interfere with maintenance by any other
state, EPA used an approach upheld by the DC Circuit in North Carolina
v. EPA. In that case, the Court examined EPA's definition of ``will''
in ``will contribute significantly.'' The placement of the word
``will'' at the end of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) clarifies that it
applies to all of the provisions that follow--both those in
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and those in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Thus the DC
Circuit's discussion of the meaning of the word ``will'' in ``will
significantly contribute'' also applies to the meaning of the word will
in ``will * * * interfere with maintenance.''
    In North Carolina v. EPA, the DC Circuit rejected North Carolina's
argument that EPA erred in limiting its analysis of downwind areas by
excluding areas that were currently monitored nonattainment but
projected to be in attainment at a future date. Like WG argues here,
North Carolina had argued that EPA was obligated to analyze the
significant contribution of states that were contributing to areas of
North Carolina that were in nonattainment at the time the rule was
promulgated even though those areas were projected to come into
attainment by the year selected for the future base case analysis. In
rejecting this argument, the DC Circuit explained that the approach
used by EPA was identical to the one used previously in the
NOX SIP Call and that ``because `will' can mean either
certainty or indicate the future tense,'' EPA's approach was
reasonable. In other words, the court approved EPA's approach that
entailed the evaluation of interstate transport impacts at a future
date in time.
    Contrary to the assertions of the commenter, EPA believes that
evaluation of interference with maintenance using a future date is the
most appropriate approach for that requirement. As explained in the
proposed action, the court decision affecting the CAIR rule required
EPA to reevaluate its approach to the interfere with maintenance
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) and to develop a new approach to
give that requirement separate meaning. In doing so, EPA has developed
an approach that necessarily requires a number of years of data, and an
analysis that evaluates where there may be difficulties with
maintaining attainment at a specific point in time, in this instance
2012. In the prior action cited by WG, EPA's evaluation of whether
emissions would significantly contribute to nonattainment in other
states was based on the data available at the time of that evaluation
and before EPA had developed its approach for evaluating interference
with maintenance. It is reasonable and appropriate for EPA to use, in
this rulemaking, the current approach to identifying maintenance
receptors for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) that EPA developed to
be consistent with the direction given to EPA in North Carolina v. EPA.
    Finally, we note that comments on the validity or reasonableness of
the approach to determining significant contribution in prior actions
are not directly relevant to this rulemaking. This rulemaking addresses
only the ``interfere with maintenance'' requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA published a prior proposal (75 FR 16032) and final
rule (75 FR 31306) analyzing the Colorado SIP submission for the
``significant contribution'' prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).

III. Final Action

    EPA is partially approving the Interstate Transport SIP submitted
by the State of Colorado on June 18, 2009. Specifically, in this action
EPA is approving the portions of that SIP submission that address the
requirement of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that emissions from sources
in that State do not ``interfere with maintenance'' of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by any other state. EPA has concluded that the State's
submission, and additional evidence evaluated by EPA, establish that

emissions from Colorado sources do not have such an impact on other
states for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the
State's SIP does not need to include additional substantive controls to
reduce emissions for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these
NAAQS. In a Federal Register action of June 3, 2010 EPA approved those
portions of the Interstate Transport SIP submitted by the State of
Colorado on June 18, 2009 addressing the requirement of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that emissions from sources in that State do not
``significantly contribute'' to violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 21, 2011. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: November 9, 2010.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

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 G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.352 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.352  Interstate transport.

    Addition to the Colorado State Implementation Plan of the Colorado
Interstate Transport SIP regarding the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard for
the ``significant contribution'' and the ``interfere with maintenance''
requirements, as adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
on December 30, 2008, State effective January 30, 2009, and submitted
by the Governor's designee on June 18, 2009.

[FR Doc. 2010-29245 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30883-30884]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13815]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0524]

Special Local Regulations; Marine Events in the Coast Guard
Sector Detroit Captain of the Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce various special local regulations
for annual regattas and marine parades in the Captain of the Port
Detroit zone. Enforcement of these regulations is necessary and
intended to protect the safety of life on the navigable waters
immediately prior to, during, and after these regattas or marine
parades. During the enforcement period listed below, the Coast Guard
will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in a
specified area immediately prior to, during, and after regattas or
marine parades.

DATES: The regulation in 33 CFR 100.911, Table 1(7), will be enforced
from 8 a.m. on July 12, 2019 through 7 p.m. on July 14, 2019. In the
case of inclement weather on any of the previous dates, this regulation
will also be enforced from 8 a.m. through 7 p.m. on July 15, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the following
special local regulations listed in 33 CFR part 100, Safety of Life on
Navigable Waters, on the following dates and times:
    (1) Bay City River Roar (formerly known as Grand Prix), Bay City,
MI. The special local regulation listed in 33 CFR 100.911, Table 1(7),
will be enforced from 8 a.m. on July 12, 2019 through 7 p.m. on July
14, 2019. In the case of inclement weather on any of the previous
dates, this safety zone will be enforced from 8 a.m. through 7 p.m. on
July 15, 2019.
    In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 100.35, the
Coast Guard will patrol the regatta area under the direction of a
designated Coast Guard patrol commander (PATCOM). The PATCOM may be
contacted on Channel 16 (156.8 MHz) by the call sign ``Coast Guard
Patrol Commander.''

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within these regulated areas
is prohibited unless authorized by the PATCOM. The PATCOM may restrict
vessel operation within the regulated area to vessels having particular
operating characteristics.
    Vessels permitted to enter this regulated area must operate at a
no-wake speed and in a manner that will not endanger race participants
or any other craft.
    The PATCOM may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any
vessel within this regulated area. A succession of sharp, short signals
by whistle or horn from vessels patrolling the area under the direction
of the PATCOM shall serve as a signal to stop. Vessels so signaled
shall stop and shall comply with the orders of the PATCOM. Failure to
do so may result in expulsion from the area, a Notice of Violation for
failure to comply, or both.
    If it is deemed necessary for the protection of life and property,
the PATCOM may terminate the marine event or the operation of any
vessel within the regulated area.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.928, vessels transiting within
the regulated area shall travel at a no-wake speed and remain vigilant
for event participants and safety craft. Additionally, vessels shall
yield right-of-way for event participants and event safety craft and
shall follow directions given by the Coast Guard's on-scene
representative or by event representatives during the event.
    The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port Detroit
is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his behalf. The
on-scene representative of the Captain of the Port Detroit will be
aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel. The
Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated on scene representative
may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    The rules in this section shall not apply to vessels participating
in the event or to government vessels patrolling the regulated area in
the performance of their assigned duties.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.35 and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). If the Captain of the Port determines that any of these
special local regulations need not be enforced for the full duration
stated in this document, he may suspend such enforcement and notify the
public of the suspension via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: June 25, 2019.
Jeffrey W. Novak,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2019-13815 Filed 6-27-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 24938-24940]
[DOCID:fr06my10-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF10-7-000]

Questar Pipeline Company; Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned Mainline 104 Expansion Project
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

April 29, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Mainline 104 Expansion
Project, involving construction and operation of facilities by Questar
Pipeline Company (Questar) in Uintah County, Utah. This EA will be used
by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether
the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on May 29, 2010.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Planned Project

    Questar plans to construct and operate about 23.3 miles of 24-inch-
diameter pipeline in Uintah County, Utah. The Mainline 104 Expansion
Project would loop \1\ the western end of Questar's existing Mainline
40 between its existing Green River Block Valve and its Fidlar
Compressor Staiton. According to Questar, its project would allow
existing shippers to amend the primary receipt-point capacity eastward
to Fidlar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A pipeline loop is constructed parallel to an existing
pipeline to increase capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Mainline 104 Expansion Project would consist of the following
facilities:
     23.5 miles of 24-inch-diameter looping pipeline;
     four mainline block valves;
     two pig launchers/receivers; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``pig'' is a tool that is inserted into and moves through
the pipeline, and is used for cleaning the pipeline, internal
inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     six taps; and
     minor modifications at the existing Fidlar Compressor
Station.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the planned facilities would disturb about 336
acres of land for the above ground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, about 142 acres would be maintained for
permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses. About 70
percent of the planned pipeline route parallels existing pipeline,
utility, or road rights-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\4\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the

planned project under these general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species; and
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. As part of our pre-filing review,
we have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss
their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, may be published and
distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA
is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments
are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section beginning on page 4.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction and/or
special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally
cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. These agencies may
choose to participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to
their responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.
Currently, the U.S. Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
have expressed their intention to participate as cooperating agencies
in the preparation of the EA to satisfy their NEPA responsibilities
related to this project.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations, we are using this notice to solicit the views
of the public on the project's potential effects on historic
properties.\5\ We will document our findings on the impacts on cultural
resources and summarize the status of consultations under section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act in our EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800.
Historic properties are defined in those regulations as any
prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or
object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register for Historic Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by Questar. This preliminary
list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     Approach and crossing of the Green River;
     Crossing the Uintah and Ouray Reservation; and
     Crossing state and federal lands.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before May 29, 2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number PF10-7-000 with your submission. The Commission
encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert eFiling staff
available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located at http://www.ferc.gov under the link
called ``Documents and Filings''. A Quick Comment is an easy method for
interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the
``eFiling'' feature that is listed under the ``Documents and Filings''
link. eFiling involves preparing your submission in the same manner as
you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file on your
computer's hard drive. You will attach that file to your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on the links
called ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister''. You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; and
local libraries and newspapers. This list includes all affected
landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of
aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project.
We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds
to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental
review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities
interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Questar files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.

An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site. Please note that the Commission will not accept
requests for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until a
formal application for the project is filed with the Commission.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., PF10-7). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/
EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10641 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 20111-20112]
[DOCID:fr23ap07-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

April 13, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC07-77-000.
    Applicants: Progress Ventures, Inc.; Constellation Energy
Commodities Group, Inc.
    Description: Progress Ventures Inc. and Constellation Energy submit
an Application for approval of the disposition of jurisdictional
facilities.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070411-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: EC07-78-000.
    Applicants: Blue Canyon Windpower, LLC; Blue Canyon Windpower II
LLC; Flat Rock Windpower LLC; Flat Rock Windpower II LLC; High Prairie
Wind Farm II, LLC; High Trail Wind Farm, LLC; Old Trail Wind Farm, LLC;
Telocaset Wind Power Partners, LLC; GS Wind Holdings, LLC; EDP-Energias
De Portugal, S.A.
    Description: Wind Project Companies et al submit their joint
application for authorization for disposition of jurisdictional
facilities and on 4/12/07 amended their filing.
    Filed Date: 04/10/2007; 04/10/07.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0176.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 1, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER01-1699-006.
    Applicants: Pilot Power Group, Inc.
    Description: Pilot Power Group, Inc submits its updated market
analysis in compliance with the Commission's letter order issued 4/30/
01.
    Filed Date: 04/11/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 2, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-879-005; ER03-880-005; ER03-882-005.
    Applicants: D.E. Shaw Plasma Power, L.L.C.; D.E. Shaw Plasma
Trading, L.L.C.; D. E. Shaw & Co. Energy, L.L.C.
    Description: D.E. Shaw Plasma Power, L.L.C., et al. submit a Notice
of Non-Material Change in Status.
    Filed Date: 04/11/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070411-5104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 2, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-985-002.
    Applicants: El Cap II, LLC.
    Description: El Cap II, LLC re-submits revisions to their 4/2/07
filing of Substitute First Revised Sheet 1 to FERC Electric Rate
Schedule 1.
    Filed Date: 04/09/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 30, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1349-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc re-submits the revised and
re-executed Service Agreements as an amendment to the 8/9/06 filing for
Firm Point-to Point Transmission Service with Kansas Municipal Energy
Agency.
    Filed Date: 04/05/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070411-0069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1367-002; ER07-239-001; ER99-1714-005.
    Applicants: BG Dighton Power, LLC; BG Energy Merchants, LLC; Lake
Road Generating Company, L.P.
    Description: BG Dighton Power, LLC, BG Energy Merchants, LLC & Lake
Road Generating, LP submit notification of change in status to inform
the Commission of a non-material departure from the characteristics
relied upon.
    Filed Date: 04/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0101.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 1, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-706-002.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc submits report of refunds
pursuant to FERC's 3/16/07 Letter Order.
    Filed Date: 04/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 1, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-219-001.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England, Inc. submit its report on requests
for cost-based reliability agreements that have been received in
anticipation of the elimination of the Peaking Unit Safe Harbor
mechanism pursuant to FERC's 1/12/07 Order.
    Filed Date: 04/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 1, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-361-002.
    Applicants: Central Illinois Light Company; Central Illinois Public
Service Company; Illinois Power Company.
    Description: Central Illinois Light Company dba AmerenCILCO et al
submits an explanation in response to FERC's 3/12/07 letter seeking
additional information about the reconfiguration of the Balancing
Authorities.
    Filed Date: 04/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 1, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-732-000.
    Applicants: Lake Road Generating Company, L.P.
    Description: Lake Road Generating Company, LP submits an Amendment
to its market-based rate schedule, FERC Electric Tariff 1.
    Filed Date: 04/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 1, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-734-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an executed Meter
Agent Services Agreement with Kansas Electric Power Cooperative et al.
    Filed Date: 04/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0097.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 1, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-735-000.
    Applicants: Exel Power Sources, LLC.
    Description: Exel Power Sources, LLC submits a Petition for
acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket Authority and request
for acceptance of FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1 etc.
    Filed Date: 04/10/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070412-0087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, May 1, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:
    Docket Numbers: PH07-10-000.
    Applicants: Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
    Description: FERC Form 65 A Exemption Notification of The Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc.
    Filed Date: 04/11/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070411-5060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 2, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-7607 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 164)]
[Notices]
[Page 52325-52326]
[DOCID:fr25au10-59]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0013, FRL-9193-3; EPA ICR No. 2103.04; OMB No. 2040-
0253]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request: Title IV of the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002: Drinking Water
Security and Safety (Act) Renewal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on February 28, 2011. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2003-0013, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: EPA Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-
0013. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
    The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Edwards, Water Security
Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Mailcode: 4608T,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
566-0055; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0013, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Use http://
www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,
permitting electronic submission of responses. In particular, EPA is
requesting comments from very small businesses (those that employ less
than 25) on examples of specific additional efforts that EPA could make
to reduce the paperwork burden for very small businesses affected by
this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under the DATES section.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
community water systems serving more than 3,300 persons.
    Title: Title IV of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002: Drinking Water Security and
Safety (Act).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2103.04; OMB Control No. 2040-0253.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on February
28, 2011. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 1433 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended
by the Bioterrorism Act, requires each community water system serving a
population of more than 3,300 people to conduct a vulnerability
assessment of its water system and to prepare or revise an emergency
response plan that incorporates the results of the vulnerability
assessment. These requirements are mandatory under the statute. EPA
will continue to use the information collected under this ICR to
determine whether community water systems have conducted vulnerability
assessments and prepared or revised emergency response plans in
compliance with Section 1433. EPA is required to protect all
vulnerability assessments and all information derived from them from
disclosure to unauthorized parties and has established an Information
Protection Protocol describing how that will be accomplished.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 237
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 80.
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 1.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 8,994.
    Estimated total annual costs: $77,252. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $1,035/respondent and an estimated cost of $16,849 for
capital and maintenance/operational costs.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is no decrease in the total estimated respondent burden
compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB.
This reflects EPA's continued need to collect documents that were
included in the original estimate, but still have not been submitted to
the Agency.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

    Dated: August 19, 2010.
Sheila E. Frace,
Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2010-21104 Filed 8-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P