9 June 2005 Ms. Susan Bell Chevron Corporation 250 Industrial Road Pascagoula, MS 39581 Dear Ms. Bell:

Section 304( b) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to annually review and, if appropriate, revise its technology based regulations, called " effluent limitations guidelines" or " effluent guidelines," that limit the discharge of pollutants to waters of the U. S. from various categories of industrial facilities. EPA is currently conducting its 2005 annual review of existing effluent guidelines. EPA will discuss this review and the results in its Preliminary 2006 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan scheduled for publication in the Federal Register in late September or early October of this year.

As part of this annual review, EPA is evaluating data reported to TRI in 2002 by facilities with existing effluent guidelines. In some cases, EPA is contacting facilities to better understand the information in TRI. These contacts are being made on behalf of EPA by Eastern Research Group, Inc. ( ERG), which is under contract with us ( Contract No. 68 C 02 095).

Recently, ERG contacted you about your 2002 TRI reported discharges. We would like to obtain additional information on the basis of these reported discharges. The specific questions are attached. Please send your responses to:

TJ Finseth 14555 Avion Parkway, Suite 200 Chantilly, VA 20151 ( 703) 633 1698 Thomas. Finseth@ erg. com Please contact me at ( 202) 566 1035 or matuszko. jan@ epa. gov if you have any questions about this effort.

Sincerely,

Jan Matuszko Chemical Engineer Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Water Environmental Protection Agency Attachment Dioxin Your company reported to TRI that you released 0.086 grams of dioxin and dioxin like compounds to surface water ( Mississippi Sound) in 2002. Your company reported that the basis of estimate for this discharge was " other approaches".

Could you please explain how the reported discharge was estimated?

In 2002, did your company ever analyze any wastewater for the dioxin congeners listed below, either an in plant stream, such as catalytic reformer regeneration, or the final discharge to Mississippi Sound?

If so, were any of the dioxins ever detected? If so, which congeners? How did your company determine the wastewater flow associated with the dioxin discharges in order to calculate the reported grams discharged?

If your company did not collect any monitoring data, how was the dioxin distribution determined?

Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds ( PACs) Your company reported to TRI that you released 110 pounds of polycyclic aromatic compounds to surface water ( Mississippi Sound) in TRI in 2002. Your company reported that the basis of estimate for this discharge was " other approaches".

Could you please explain how the reported discharge was estimated?

In 2002, did your company ever analyze any wastewater for any of the polycyclic aromatic compounds listed below, either an in plant stream, such as catalytic reformer regeneration, or the final discharge to Mississippi Sound?

If so, were any polycyclic aromatic compounds ever detected? If so, which compounds? How did your company determine the wastewater flow associated with the polycyclic aromatic compound discharges in order to calculate the reported pounds discharged?

Dioxin and Dioxin Like Compounds CAS Number Chemical Name Abbreviated Name CDDs 1746 01 6 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo p dioxin 2,3,7,8 TCDD 40321 76 4 1,2,3,7,8 pentachlorodibenzo p dioxin 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDD 39227 28 6 1,2,3,4,7,8 hexachlorodibenzo p dioxin 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD 57653 85 7 1,2,3,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzo p dioxin 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD 19408 74 3 1,2,3,7,8,9 hexachlorodibenzo p dioxin 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD 35822 46 9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 heptachlorodibenzo p dioxin 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD 3268 87 9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 octachlorodibenzo p dioxin 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 OCDD CDFs CAS Number Chemical Name Abbreviated Name 51207 31 9 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,7,8 TCDF 57117 41 6 1,2,3,7,8 pentachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,7,8 PeCDF 57117 31 4 2,3,4,7,8 pentachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF 70648 26 9 1,2,3,4,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF 57117 44 9 1,2,3,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF 72918 21 9 1,2,3,7,8,9 hexachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF 60851 34 5 2,3,4,6,7,8 hexachlorodibenzofuran 2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF 67562 39 4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 heptachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF 55673 89 7 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 heptachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF 39001 02 0 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 octachlorodibenzofuran 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9 OCDF Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds PAC Compound CAS Number Benzo( a) anthracene 56 55 3 Benzo( a) phenanthrene ( chrysene) 218 01 9 Benzo( a) pyrene 50 32 8 Benzo( b) fluoranthene 205 99 2 Benzo( j) fluoranthene 205 82 3 Benzo( k) fluoranthene 207 08 9 Benzo( j, k) fluorene ( fluoranthene) 206 44 0 Benzo( r, s, t) pentaphene 189 55 9 Dibenz( a, h) acridine 226 36 8 Dibenz( a, j) acridine 224 42 0 Dibenzo( a, h) anthracene 53 70 3 Dibenzo( a, e) fluoranthene 5385 75 1 Dibenzo( a, e) pyrene 192 65 4 Dibenzo( a, h) pyrene 189 64 0 Dibenzo( a, l) pyrene 191 30 0 7H Dibenzo( e, g) carbazole 194 59 2 7,12 Dimethylbenz( a) anthracene 57 97 6 Indeno( 1,2,3 cd) pyrene 193 39 5 3 Methylcholanthrene 56 49 5 5 Methylchrysene 3697 24 3 1 Nitropyrene 5522 43 0


[Federal Register: November 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 213)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57264-57266]
[DOCID:fr05no09-13]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1027; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-143-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional
Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and
CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as: There have been several in-service cases reported of
impact damage to the blowout (decompression) panel protective cage
assemblies installed in the aft baggage cargo compartment. When
damaged, these cages could prevent proper operation of the blowout
panels, with potential degradation of smoke detection and fire
extinguishing capabilities in the event of a fire.
    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 21,
2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Craig Yates, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-1027;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-143-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We have lengthened the 30-day comment period for proposed ADs that
address MCAI originated by aviation authorities of other countries to
provide adequate time for interested parties to submit comments. The
comment period for these proposed ADs is now typically 45 days, which
is consistent with the comment period for domestic transport ADs.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2009-30, dated July 6, 2009 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    There have been several in-service cases reported of impact
damage to the blowout (decompression) panel protective cage
assemblies installed in the aft baggage cargo compartment. When
damaged, these cages could prevent proper operation of the blowout
panels, with potential degradation of smoke detection and fire
extinguishing capabilities in the event of a fire.
    This directive mandates replacement of the existing cages with
new cages that have greater damage resistance.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-25-071, dated May 15,
2009. The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of

Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition
described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and
determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 361 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,263 per product. Where
the service information lists required parts costs that are covered
under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these
costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties,
some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to
be $513,703, or $1,423 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Bombardier Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Docket No. FAA-2009-1027;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-143-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 21, 2009.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD; certificated in any category.
    (1) Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701,
& 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10003 through 10268, inclusive.
    (2) Bombardier Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
airplanes and Bombardier Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15205, inclusive.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25:
Equipment/Furnishings.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    There have been several in-service cases reported of impact
damage to the blowout (decompression) panel protective cage
assemblies installed in the aft baggage cargo compartment. When
damaged, these cages could prevent proper operation of the blowout
panels, with potential degradation of smoke detection and fire
extinguishing capabilities in the event of a fire.
    This directive mandates replacement of the existing cages with
new cages that have greater damage resistance.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, within 5,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, replace the existing cage assemblies in
the aft baggage cargo compartment, in accordance with Bombardier
Service Bulletin 670BA-25-071, dated May 15, 2009.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-170, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for
this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to Attn: Program Manager Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your principal
maintenance inspector (PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI),
as appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority

(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada Civil Aviation Airworthiness
Directive CF-2009-30, dated July 6, 2009; and Bombardier Service
Bulletin 670BA-25-071, dated May 15, 2009; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 28, 2009.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E9-26627 Filed 11-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34400-34401]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14876]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

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

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

DATE AND TIME: June 18, 2015, 10:00 a.m.

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

STATUS: OPEN.

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

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

                                        1017th--Meeting, Regular Meeting
                                           [June 18, 2015 10:00 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Item No                                Docket No.                           Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1.....................................  AD02-1-000...........................  Agency Business Matters.
A-2.....................................  AD02-7-000...........................  Customer Matters, Reliability,
                                                                                Security and Market
                                                                                Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    ELECTRIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1.....................................  ER14-2464-002........................  Midcontinent Independent System
                                                                                Operator, Inc.
                                          EL15-36-000..........................  Otter Tail Power Company v.
                                                                                Midcontinent Independent
                                                                                System Operator, Inc.
E-2.....................................  RM15-16-000..........................  Transmission Operations
                                                                                Reliability Standards and
                                                                                Interconnection Reliability
                                                                                Operations and Coordination
                                                                                Reliability Standards.
E-3.....................................  RM15-7-000...........................  Revisions to Emergency
                                                                                Operations Reliability
                                                                                Standards.
                                          RM15-12-000..........................  Revisions to Undervoltage Load
                                                                                Shedding Reliability
                                                                                Standards.
                                           RM15-13-000.........................   Revisions to the Definition of
                                                                                ``Remedial Action Scheme'' and
                                                                                Related Reliability Standards.
E-4.....................................  RM15-5-000...........................  Revised Exhibit Submission
                                                                                Requirements for Commission
                                                                                Hearings.
E-5.....................................  RR15-8-000...........................  North American Electric
                                                                                Reliability Corporation.
E-6.....................................  ER12-1338-001........................  Duke Energy Corporation and
                                                                                Progress Energy, Inc.
                                          ER12-1347-002........................  Carolina Power & Light Co.
E-7.....................................  ER15-3-001...........................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and
                                                                                Commonwealth Edison Company.
E-8.....................................  ER15-1137-000........................  ISO New England Inc.
E-9.....................................  ER14-781-002.........................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
                                          ER14-781-003.........................  ...............................
E-10....................................  EL15-61-000..........................  Benjamin Riggs v. Rhode Island
                                                                                Public Utilities Commission.
E-11....................................  EL14-46-000..........................  Ameren Services Company.
E-12....................................  EL15-18-000..........................  Consolidated Edison Company of
                                                                                New York, Inc. v. PJM
                                                                                Interconnection, L.L.C.
                                          ER14-972-001.........................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
                                          ER14-972-002 (not consolidated)......  ...............................
E-13....................................  OMITTED..............................  ...............................
E-14....................................  EL15-43-000..........................  Delta-Montrose Electric
                                                                                Association.
E-15....................................  EL09-63-000..........................  City of Orangeburg, South
                                                                                Carolina.
E-16....................................  EL15-6-001...........................  P[aacute]Tu Wind Farm, LLC v.
                                                                                Portland General Electric
                                                                                Company.
                                          QF06-17-003..........................  P[aacute]Tu Wind Farm, LLC.
E-17....................................  EL11-63-001..........................  Louisiana Public Service
                                                                                Commission v. Entergy
                                                                                Corporation; Entergy Services,
                                                                                Inc.; Entergy Louisiana, LLC;
                                                                                Entergy Arkansas, Inc.;
                                                                                Entergy New Orleans, Inc.;
                                                                                Entergy Mississippi, Inc.;
                                                                                Entergy Gulf States Louisiana,
                                                                                L.L.C.; and Entergy Texas,
                                                                                Inc.
E-18....................................  OMITTED..............................  ...............................
E-19....................................  ER15-696-000.........................  PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
E-20....................................  EL15-45-000..........................  Arkansas Electric Cooperative
                                                                                Corporation; Mississippi Delta
                                                                                Energy Agency; Clarksdale
                                                                                Public Utilities Commission;
                                                                                Public Service Commission of
                                                                                Yazoo City; and Hoosier Energy
                                                                                Rural Electric Cooperative,
                                                                                Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc.; Ameren
                                                                                Illinois Company; Ameren
                                                                                Missouri; Ameren Transmission
                                                                                Company of Illinois; American
                                                                                Transmission Company LLC;
                                                                                Cleco Power LLC; Duke Energy
                                                                                Business Services, LLC;
                                                                                Entergy Arkansas, Inc.;
                                                                                Entergy Gulf States Louisiana,
                                                                                LLC; Entergy Louisiana, LLC;
                                                                                Entergy Mississippi, Inc.;
                                                                                Entergy New Orleans, Inc.;
                                                                                Entergy Texas, Inc.;
                                                                                Indianapolis Power & Light
                                                                                Company; International
                                                                                Transmission Company; ITC
                                                                                Midwest LLC; Michigan Electric
                                                                                Transmission Company, LLC;
                                                                                MidAmerican Energy Company;
                                                                                Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.;
                                                                                Northern Indiana Public
                                                                                Service Company; Northern
                                                                                States Power Company-
                                                                                Minnesota; Northern States
                                                                                Power Company-Wisconsin; Otter
                                                                                Tail Power Company; and
                                                                                Southern Indiana Gas &
                                                                                Electric Company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      HYDRO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1.....................................  CD15-18-001..........................  Soldier Canyon Filter Plant.
H-2.....................................  P-14581-001..........................  Turlock Irrigation District and
                                                                                Modesto Irrigation District.
H-3.....................................  P-13212-004..........................  Kenai Hydro, LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  CERTIFICATES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1.....................................  CP14-548-000 CP14-547-000............  Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
                                                                                America LLC Devon Gas
                                                                                Services, L.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued: June 11, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov.
Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by
navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event
in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The
Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It
also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via
phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit
www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David
Reininger at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol
Connection service.

[FR Doc. 2015-14876 Filed 6-12-15; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


52014 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2003 / Notices 12: 15   1: 15 p. m. Lunch. 1: 15   2: 30 p. m. Discussion of Market Design Issues. Moderator: Tom Ballinger, Florida PSC Staff. GridFlorida Applicants: Greg Ramon, Tampa Electric Company ( TECO), Independent Power Producers, John Orr, Reliant Energy, Transmission Dependent Utility, Tim Woodbury, Seminole Electric Cooperative. 2: 30   3 p. m. Next Steps for GridFlorida. Florida Public Service Commission: Jennifer Brubaker, Florida PSC Staff. GridFlorida Applicants: Ken Hoffman, Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman 3   3: 30 p. m. Discussion and Public Input. State and Federal Commissioners.

[ FR Doc. 03   22110 Filed 8   28   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717   01   P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [ Docket No. RM98   1   000]

Regulations Governing Off the Record Communications; Public Notice August 22, 2003. This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385 § 2201( b), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited offthe record communications. Order No. 607 ( 64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or prohibited off the record communication relevant to the merit's of a contested on therecord proceeding, to deliver a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication, to the Secretary. Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off the record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off the record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off the record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010. Exempt off the record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201( e)( 1)( v). The following is a list of prohibited and exempt communications recently received in the Office of the Secretary. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http:// www. ferc. gov using the eLibrary ( FERRIS) link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For Assistance, please contact FERC, Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ ferc. gov or toll free at ( 866) 208   3676, or for TTY, contact ( 202) 502   8659.

Docket No. Date filed Presenter or requester Prohibited 1. ER03   1118   000 .............................................................................................................................. 8   15   03 Stephen G. Kozey. 2. Project No. 2343   000 ...................................................................................................................... 8   20   03 Chuck Simons 3. EL03   219   000 ................................................................................................................................. 8   21   03 Mark Runquist. 4. EL03   219   000 ................................................................................................................................. 8   21   03 Bruce Banister. 5. EL03   219   000 ................................................................................................................................. 8   21   03 Betty Turner. 6. EL03   219   000 ................................................................................................................................. 8   21   03 Betty Yunek. 7. EL03   219   000 ................................................................................................................................. 8   21   03 Randy Schon.

Exempt 1. EL02   101   001 ................................................................................................................................. 7   31   03 Jim Sullivan. 2. CP03   33   000 .................................................................................................................................. 8   21   03 John J. Wisniewski. 3 Project No. 2069   000 ....................................................................................................................... 8   21   03 Frank Winchell.

Magalie R. Salas, Secretary. [ FR Doc. 03   22111 Filed 8   28   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717   01   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7551   1]

Proposed Stipulation of Settlement Clean Air Act Citizen Suit AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed stipulation of settlement; request for public comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113( g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (`` Act''), 42 U. S. C. 7413( g), notice is hereby given of a proposed stipulation of settlement to address a lawsuit filed by the New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. ( NYPIRG) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was filed pursuant to section 304( a) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. 705( a) and alleges that the Administrator failed to meet a mandatory sixty day deadline under section 505( b)( 2) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. 7661d( b)( 2), for granting or denying petitions seeking the Agency's objection to two Clean Air Act Title V operating permits issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ( DEC). In addition, NYPIRG petitioned the Administrator seeking the Agency's objection to twelve other operating permits issued by the DEC. These fourteen petitions are addressed by the proposed stipulation of settlement, which establishes a schedule for the Administrator to respond to these petitions.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 14 Aug 28, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 29AUN1. SGM 29AUN1 52015 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2003 / Notices DATES: Written comments on the proposed stipulation of settlement agreement must be received by September 29, 2003. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket ID number OGC   2003   0001, online at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket ( EPA's preferred method); by e mail to oei. docket@ epa. gov; mailed to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, between 8: 30 a. m. and 4: 30 p. m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CDROM should be formatted in Wordperfect or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Apple Chapman or Padmini Singh, Air and Radiation Law Office ( 2344A), Office of General Counsel, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Stipulation of Settlement NYPIRG alleges that the United States Environmental Protection Agency Administrator failed to meet a mandatory sixty day deadline under section 505( b)( 2) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. 7662d( b)( 2), for granting or denying petitions seeking EPA's objection to a total of fourteen Title V permits ( two in this case and an additional twelve pending before the Agency) issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed stipulation establishes a schedule for EPA's responses to these petitions. The proposed stipulation of settlement requires EPA to sign orders responding to the plaintiffs' petitions for the following facilities no later than the dates specified: ( a) the Huntley Steam Generating Station petition, by July 31, 2003; ( b) the Dunkirk Steam Generating Station petition, by July 31, 2003; ( c) the Consolidated Edison Company of New York's Hudson Avenue Generating Station petition, by September 30, 2003; ( d) the Consolidated Edison Company of New York's Ravenswood Steam Plant petition, by September 30, 2003; ( e) the Al Turi Landfill petition, by January 23, 2004; ( f) the New York Organic Fertilizer Corporation petition, by May 22, 2004; ( g) the Sirmos Division of Bromante Corporation petition, by May 22, 2004; ( h) the New York City Transit Authority's East NY Bus Depot petition, by May 22, 2004; ( i) the Keyspan Generation Far Rockaway Station petition, by September 24, 2004; ( j) the North River Water Pollution Control Plant petition, by September 24, 2004; ( k) the Motiva Enterprises petition, by September 24, 2004; ( l) the Bristol Myers Squibb petition, by February 18, 2005; ( m) the Eastman Kodak Power Plant petition by February 18, 2005; and ( n) the Eastman Kodak Manufacturing Plant petition, by February 18, 2005. The Administrator signed orders responding to ( a) the Huntley Steam Generating Station petition, and ( b) the Dunkirk Steam Generating Station petition on July 31, 2003. For a period of thirty ( 30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed stipulation of settlement from persons who were not named as parties or interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed stipulation of settlement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determine, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent to the stipulation of settlement should be withdrawn, the terms of the stipulation will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Stipulation of Settlement A. How Can I Get A Copy of the Stipulation of Settlement?

EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OGC   2003   0001 which contains a copy of the stipulation of settlement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is ( 202) 566   1752. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 14 Aug 28, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 29AUN1. SGM 29AUN1 52016 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 168 / Friday, August 29, 2003 / Notices public docket. 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. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail ( e mail) system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, your e mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

Dated: August 21, 2003. Lisa K. Friedman, Associate General Counsel. [ FR Doc. 03   22159 Filed 8   28   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0275; FRL   7324   3]

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee; Request for Nominations AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) is inviting nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to the Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee ( PPDC). EPA's current Charter for the PPDC will expire in November 2003. EPA intends to seek renewal of the PPDC Charter for another 2   year term, November 2003 to November 2005, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. DATES: Nominations must be postmarked no later than October 1, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be submitted in writing to Margie Fehrenbach at the address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Margie Fehrenbach, Designated Federal Officer for PPDC, Office of Pesticide Programs, ( 7501C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 703) 308   4775 or( 703) 305   7090; fax number: ( 703) 308   4776; e mail address: Fehrenbach. Margie@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

This action is directed to the public in general; however, persons may be interested who work in agricultural settings or persons who are concerned about implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA); the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA); and the amendments to both of these major pesticide laws by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA), ( Public Law 104   170) of 1996. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Potentially affected entities may include but are not limited to: Agricultural workers and farmers; pesticide industry and trade associations; environmental, consumer and farmworker groups; pesticide users and growers; pest consultants; State, local and Tribal governments; academia; public health organizations; food processors; and the public. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0275. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access thisFederal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings athttp:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets athttp:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background EPA is entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the safety of the American food supply, the protection and education of those who apply or are exposed to pesticides occupationally or through use of products from unreasonable risk, and general protection of the environment and special ecosystems from potential risks posed by pesticides. The Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee ( PPDC) is a federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ( FACA), Public Law 92   463. It was originally established in September 1995 for a 2   year term and renewed every 2 years. EPA is seeking to renew the current PPDC Charter, which expires in November 2003, for another 2   year term. PPDC provides advice and recommendations to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs on a broad range of pesticide regulatory, policy and program implementation issues that are associated with evaluating and reducing risks from use of pesticides. EPA intends to appoint members to 1   or 2   year terms. An important consideration in EPA's selection of members will be to maintain balance and diversity of experience and expertise. EPA also intends to seek broad geographic representation from the following sectors: Environmental/ public interest and consumer groups; farm worker organizations; pesticide industry and trade associations; pesticide user, grower, and commodity groups; Federal and State/ local/ Tribal governments; the general public; academia; and public health organizations.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 14 Aug 28, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 29AUN1. SGM 29AUN1


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 226 (Tuesday, November 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73156-73160]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29802]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0545; FRL-9937-27-Region 9]

Disapproval of California Air Plan Revisions, South Coast Air
Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)
concerning Vehicle Scrapping, Employee Trip Reduction, and procedures
for the hearing board concerning variances and subpoenas.

We are proposing action on local rules that regulate these activities
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on
this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by December 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2015-0545, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Idalia P[eacute]rez, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972-3248<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the identified rule deficiencies?
    D. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules proposed for disapproval with the date that
they were adopted or amended and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted or
            Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title              amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD.............................            1610  Old-Vehicle Scrapping......        05/09/97        06/03/97
SCAQMD.............................            2202  On-Road Motor Vehicle              10/09/98        06/03/99
                                                      Mitigation Options.
SCAQMD.............................           503.1  Ex Parte Petitions for             02/05/88        02/07/89
                                                      Variances.
SCAQMD.............................             504  Rules from which Variances         01/05/90        05/13/91
                                                      Are Not Allowed.
SCAQMD.............................           511.1  Subpoenas..................        02/05/88        02/07/89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 3, 1997, the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 1610 was deemed
by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part
51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On December
3, 1999, the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 2202 was deemed by operation of
law to meet the completeness criteria. On May 5, 1989, the EPA
determined that the submittal for SCAQMD Rules 503.1 and 511.1 met the
completeness criteria. On July 10, 1991, the EPA determined that the
submittal for SCAQMD Rule 504 met the completeness.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 1610 in the SIP, although
the SCAQMD adopted earlier versions of this rule on 02/11/94, 10/13/95,
02/08/96 and 04/11/97, and CARB submitted them to us on 07/13/94, 10/
18/96, 10/18/96 and 06/03/97 respectively. There are no previous
versions of Rule 2202 in the SIP, although the SCAQMD adopted earlier
versions of this rule on 12/08/95, 03/08/96 and 11/08/96, and CARB
submitted them to us on 11/26/96, 11/26/96 and 12/19/97 respectively.
There are no previous versions of Rules 503.1 and 511.1. There are no
previous versions of Rule 504 in the SIP, although the SCAQMD adopted
an earlier version of this rule on 02/05/88. While we can only act on
the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials
provided with previous submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    Nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) help produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter
(PM), which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC and
NOX emissions. Rule 1610 is a voluntary rule with the goal
of reducing motor vehicle exhaust emissions of VOC, NOX,
carbon monoxide (CO), and PM by issuing mobile source emission
reduction credits (MSERCs) in exchange for the scrapping of old, high
emitting vehicles. Rule 2202 requires employers with 250 or more full
or part-time employees at a worksite to reduce mobile source emissions
of VOC, NOX and CO generated from employee commutes. The
EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more information about
rules 1610 and 2202.
    Rules 503.1 describes procedures for how sources can apply for ex
parte variances. Rule 504 specifies rules for which the SCAQMD hearing
board will not grant variances. Rule 511.1

describes procedures for the hearing board regarding subpoenas.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating these rules?

    SIP rules must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), must not
interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section
110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements in
nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193). In addition, pursuant to CAA section
110(i), neither EPA nor a state may revise a SIP by issuing an ``order,
suspension, plan revision, or other action modifying any requirement of
an applicable implementation plan'' without a plan promulgation or
revision.
    Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of
VOCs and NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The SCAQMD
regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as extreme for the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone standards (40 CFR 51.305). In addition, SIP
rules must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) in
moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see CAA sections
172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). The SCAQMD regulates a PM2.5
nonattainment area classified as moderate for the annual and 24-hour
standards (40 CFR 51.312). A RACM evaluation is generally performed in
context of a broader plan.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for
Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,'' EPA from J. Craig Potter,
Thomas L. Adams Jr., Francis S. Blake, September 23, 1987.
    5. ``Guidance an Enforceability Requirements for Limiting
Potential to Emit through SIP and Sec.  112 Rules and General
Permits'' EPA from Kathie A. Stein, January 25, 1995.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    EPA supports SCAQMD efforts to implement nontraditional and
innovative strategies for reducing air pollutant emissions, including
commuter programs to reduce the frequency that employees drive alone to
work, and programs to incentivize early adoption and turnover to
cleaner, less-polluting mobile sources.\1\ Nonetheless, we have
identified several provisions in these rules that do not meet the
evaluation criteria. These deficiencies are summarized below and
discussed further in the TSDs. Because these deficiencies are
significant enough to prevent our approval of these rules, we have not
attempted to identify all other potential approvability issues, and are
not providing a detailed analysis of all the evaluation criteria listed
above. While we cannot propose to approve SCAQMD Rules 1610 and 2202 at
this time, we commend SCAQMD's leadership in developing and
implementing creative programs like these for many years and we commit
to continued collaboration to address SCAQMD's air quality challenges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., U.S. EPA, Transportation and Climate Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, ``Commuter Programs:
Quantifying and Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and
Conformity'' (February 2014) and Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, re: ``Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary
Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation
Plans (SIPs)'' (October 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA and California have long recognized that a state-issued
variance, though binding as a matter of state law, does not prevent EPA
from enforcing the underlying SIP provisions unless and until EPA
approves that variance as a SIP revision. The variance provisions in
Rules 503.1 and 504 are deficient for various reasons, including their
failure to address the fact that a state- or district-issued variance
has no effect on enforcing the underlying federal requirement unless
the variance is submitted to and approved by EPA as a SIP revision.
Therefore, the inclusion of these rules in the SIP is inconsistent with
the Act and may be confusing to regulated industry and the general
public.
    States and Districts can adopt various provisions describing local
agency investigative or enforcement authority, including the authority
to issue subpoenas such as in Rule 511.1, to demonstrate adequate
enforcement authority under section 110(a)(2) of the Act. These rules
should not be approved into the applicable SIP, however, to avoid
potential conflict with EPA's independent authorities provided in CAA
section 113, section 114 and elsewhere.

C. What are the identified rule deficiencies?

    The deficiencies listed below are some of the provisions that of
the submitted rules that do not satisfy the requirements of section 110
and part D of Title I of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP
submittals.
    We propose to disapprove the SIP revision for Rule 1610 based at
least in part on the following deficiencies:
    1. The Section (e)(2) requirement that engines of scrapped vehicles
be destroyed is insufficiently federally enforceable for various
reasons.
    2. The Section (f)(2)(A) requirement that the vehicle be registered
for two years within SCAQMD is not fully enforceable by allowing the
Executive Officer to approve different documentation.
    3. The Section (g) requirement of a visual and functional
inspection of the vehicle has no recordkeeping requirements.
    4. There is no recordkeeping requirement to demonstrate compliance
with the Section (g)(1) requirement that vehicles be driven under their
own power to the scrapping site.
    5. There is no requirement to maintain records for the life of the
MSERCs.
    We propose to disapprove the SIP revision for Rule 2202 based at
least in part on the following deficiencies:
    1. Per Section (f)(1), the rule relies on Regulation XVI, which is
not currently in the SIP.
    2. Per Section (f)(3), the rule relies on AQIP (Rule 2501), which
is not currently in the SIP.
    3. Per Section (f)(4), the rule relies on emission reduction
strategies approved on a case-by-case basis by the Executive Officer.
    4. Per Section (g)(4), the rule relies on vehicle miles travelled
reduction programs approved on a case-by-case basis by the Executive
Officer.
    We propose to disapprove the SIP revision for Rules 503.1 and 504
because they conflict with CAA sections 110(a) and (i) and fail to
address that a state- or district-issued variance has no effect on
enforcing the underlying federal requirement unless the variance is
submitted to and approved by EPA as a SIP revision.

    We propose to disapprove the SIP revision for Rule 511.1 to avoid
potential conflict with EPA's independent authorities provided in CAA
section 113, section 114 and elsewhere.

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing
full disapproval of the submitted SCAQMD Rules 1610, 2202, 503.1, 504,
and 511.1. There are no sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
implications should EPA finalize this disapproval. Sanctions would not
be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the submittal of Rules 1610
and 2202 is discretionary (i.e., not required to be included in the
SIP). A FIP would not be imposed under CAA section 110(c)(1) because
the disapproval does not reveal a deficiency in the SIP that such a FIP
must correct. Specifically: (1) Rule 1610 is voluntary and only serves
to provide for an alternative method of compliance for stationary and
other emission sources subject to other District regulations that allow
the use of credits as a compliance option; and (2) Rule 2202 is not a
required CAA submittal because the CAA gives state and local agencies
discretion, but does not require, employers ``to implement programs to
reduce work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled by employees''
(see CAA section 182(d)(1)(B)). Additionally, at this time, we have not
credited emission reductions from Rules 1610 or 2202 in an approved SIP
and we are not aware of a SCAQMD plan submitted to EPA that relies on
emission reductions from these rules to fulfill a CAA requirement.
Accordingly, the failure of the SCAQMD to adopt revisions to Rules 1610
and 2202 would not adversely affect the SIP's compliance with the CAA's
requirements, such as the requirements for section 182 ozone RACT,
reasonable further progress, and attainment demonstrations. Rules
503.1, 504 and 511.1 regulate hearing board procedures and do not
control emission sources or otherwise generate emission reductions nor
are they required elements of the SIP. Thus, EPA does not need to
impose sanctions or promulgate a FIP upon their disapproval. Note that
the submitted rules have been adopted by the SCAQMD, and a final
disapproval by the EPA would not prevent the local agency from
enforcing them or the revised versions of these rules subsequently
adopted by SCAQMD as a matter of State law.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval
for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule
does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities.
This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part
D of the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new
requirements but simply disapproves certain State requirements for
inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA
to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule.
Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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, because it merely disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
rules EPA is proposing to disapprove would not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and EPA notes that it will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to
E.O. 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory
action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP disapproval under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in-
and-of itself create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain
State requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994))
establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

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: October 30, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2015-29802 Filed 11-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P