[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 50 (Thursday, March 16, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13968-13969]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05288]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 68

[EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725; FRL-9959-57-OLEM]
RIN 2050-AG82

Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air Act; Further Delay of Effective Date

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: By a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator announced
the convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the final rule
that amends the chemical accident prevention provisions addressing Risk
Management Programs under the Clean Air Act published in the Federal
Register on January 13, 2017. The effective date of these regulations
had been March 21, 2017. By this action, the EPA is administratively
staying and delaying the effective date of this rule for 90 days. Thus,
the January 13, 2017 rule will become effective on June 19, 2017.

DATES: The effective date of the rule amending 40 CFR part 68 published
at 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017), as delayed at 82 FR 8499 (January 26,
2017) is further delayed to June 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for the rule amending 40
CFR part 68 under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725. 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 electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Belke, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency
Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. (Mail Code 5104A), Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or: Kathy Franklin, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Land and Emergency Management, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW. (Mail Code 5104A), Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Electronic copies of this document and related news releases are
available on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/rmp. Copies of this
final rule are also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On January 13, 2017, the EPA (``we'') issued a final rule amending
40 CFR part 68, the chemical accident prevention provisions under
section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) ((42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The
amendments addressed various aspects of risk management programs,
including prevention programs at stationary sources, emergency response
preparedness requirements, information availability, and various other
changes to streamline, clarify, and otherwise technically correct the
underlying rules. Collectively, this rulemaking is known as the ``Risk
Management Program Amendments.'' For further information on the Risk
Management Program Amendments, see 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).
    On January 26, 2017, the EPA published a final rule extending the
effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments from March 14,
2017, to March 21, 2017, see 82 FR 8499. This revision to the effective
date of the Risk Management Program Amendments was part of an EPA final
rule implementing a memorandum dated January 20, 2017, from the
Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory
Freeze Pending Review.'' This memorandum directed the heads of agencies
to extend until 60 days after the date of its issuance the effective
date of rules that were published prior to January 20, 2017 but which
had not yet become effective.
    In a letter dated February 28, 2017, a group known as the ``RMP
Coalition,'' \1\ submitted a petition for reconsideration of the Risk
Management Program Amendments (``RMP Coalition Petition'') as provided
for in CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) (42 U.S.C.

7607(d)(7)(B)).\2\ Under that provision, the Administrator is to
commence a reconsideration proceeding if in the Administrator's
judgment the petitioner raises an objection to a rule that was
impracticable to raise during the comment period or if the grounds for
the objection arose after the comment period but within the period for
judicial review. In either case, the Administrator must also conclude
that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
The Administrator may stay the effective date of the rule for up to
three months during such reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The RMP Coalition is comprised of the American Chemistry
Council, the American Forest & Paper Association, the American Fuel
& Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, the
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the National
Association of Manufacturers, and the Utility Air Regulatory Group.
    \2\ A copy of the petition is included in the docket for this
rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated March 13, 2017, the Administrator announced the
convening of a proceeding for reconsideration of the Risk Management
Program Amendments (a copy of this letter is included in the docket for
this rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725). As explained in that
letter, having considered the objections raised in the RMP Coalition
Petition, the Administrator determined that the criteria for
reconsideration have been met for at least one of the objections. We
will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future that
will provide the RMP Coalition and the public an opportunity to comment
on the issues raised in the petition that meet the standard of CAA
section 307(d)(7)(B) as well as any other matter we believe will
benefit from additional comment.

II. Issuance of a Stay and Delay of Effective Date

    The EPA hereby issues a three-month (90-day) administrative stay of
the effective date of the Risk Management Program Amendments. The
effective date of the rule amending 40 CFR part 68 published at 82 FR
4594 (January 13, 2017), as amended by 82 FR 8499 (January 26, 2017),
is delayed to June 19, 2017.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 68

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 13, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-05288 Filed 3-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 107 (Monday, June 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 25664]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11888]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-85-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Addendum to April 16, 2018 Application for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of New England
Power Company.
    Filed Date: 5/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180524-5236.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1391-002.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: SDGE Revisions to SGIA, LGIA and
GIP, WDAT V.6 to be effective 5/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180523-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1626-008.
    Applicants: Tenaska Virginia Partners, L.P.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of Tenaska Virginia
Partners, L.P.
    Filed Date: 5/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180524-5234.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1029-004.
    Applicants: Chubu TT Energy Management Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Chubu TT
Energy Management Inc.
    Filed Date: 5/25/18.
    Accession Number: 20180525-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1609-001.
    Applicants: Carroll County Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Carroll
County Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180524-5233.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-499-003.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Hope PSA to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180524-5226.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-865-002.
    Applicants: Power 52 Inc.
    Description: Supplement to May 22, 2018 Power 52 Inc. tariff filing
(Asset Appendix).
    Filed Date: 5/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180524-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1402-002.
    Applicants: KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to 205 to be effective 6/
1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/25/18.
    Accession Number: 20180525-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1458-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Joint OATT Real Transmission Power
Losses (DEF) 2018 Amendment to be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/23/18.
    Accession Number: 20180523-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1684-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 5096;
Queue No. AD1-063 to be effective 5/21/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/24/18.
    Accession Number: 20180524-5192.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/14/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1685-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Service
Agreement No. 4670; Queue No. AA2-059 to be effective 6/4/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/25/18.
    Accession Number: 20180525-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1686-000.
    Applicants: Blackstone Wind Farm II LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Rate Schedule for Reactive
Supply and Voltage Control to be effective 7/24/2018.
    Filed Date: 5/25/18.
    Accession Number: 20180525-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/15/18.

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

    Dated: May 25, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11888 Filed 6-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 203)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54489]
[DOCID:fr22oc09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 172 and 174

[RSPA Docket No. 2006-26322 (HM-206F)]
RIN 2137-AE21

Hazardous Materials: Revision of Requirements for Emergency
Response Telephone Numbers

Correction

    In rule document E9-24799 beginning on page 53413 in the issue of
Monday, October 19, 2009, make the following correction:
    On page 53413, in the third column, under the DATES section, in the
second line, ``November 18, 2009'' should read ``October 1, 2010''.

[FR Doc. Z9-24799 Filed 10-21-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


This proposed rulemaking would Federally promulgate the criteria necessary to bring the State into full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). To fully protect State designated uses, and to ensure that the required criteria are adopted, EPA proposes to apply broadly the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b). At a minimum, EPA proposes to apply, to all appropriate State waters, the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b) for all priority toxic pollutants which are not the subject of approved State criteria. EPA also proposes to promulgate Federal criteria for priority toxic pollutants where any previously approved State criteria are insufficiently stringent to fully protect all designated uses, or where such previously approved State criteria are not applicable to all appropriate State designated uses. EPA invites public comment regarding any specific priority pollutants or water bodies for which Federal criteria may not be necessary to protect State designated uses.

For reasons which are fully discussed in the preamble, EPA has not attempted to determine the specific priority pollutants and water bodies that require criteria. However, EPA has determined that at least some Federal criteria are necessary to protect designated uses. This determination is supported by information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present in surface waters at levels that can reasonably be expected to interfere with State designated uses. For some priority toxic pollutants, available data clearly demonstrate use impairment and the need for toxics criteria. For most priority toxic pollutants, however, available data on the discharge and presence of priority toxic pollutants are spatially and temporally limited. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the data for many of these pollutants are sufficient to satisfy the " reasonable expectation" test established in section 303( c)( 2)( B). The information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present and that Federal criteria are necessary may be summarized as follows:  Priority toxic pollutants on the State section 304 ( l) short list including metals for which revised state criteria have not been adopted and approved.  State efforts since 1987 to adopt additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants, as described above. The State has initiated ( but not completed) efforts to adopt new or revised chemical specific, numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants. These efforts represent evidence of the State's recognition of the need for numeric criteria for these priority toxic pollutants.  Regional Ambient Fish Tissue Monitoring data indicating elevated fish flesh concentrations of pesticides which are not currently covered with approved state criteria.  STORET data indicating the presence in surface waters of priority toxic pollutants which are not currently covered with approved state criteria.

Kansas is included in today's proposal because although the state adopted numeric criteria for a few priority toxic pollution before the 1987 amendments, the state has not completed a review of their numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the statutory requirements and the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). Therefore, EPA has determined for purposes of today's proposed rulemaking that the State is not currently in compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B) because it has not adopted water quality standards consistent with section 303( c)( 2)( B) which have been fully approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.

Kansas adopted some criteria for priority toxic pollutants prior to the passage of section 303( c)( 2)( B) on May 1, 1986 ( State Regulation K. A. R. 28 16 28e). EPA approved these criteria on June 19, 1986, and most of these criteria are not affected by today's proposed rulemaking. ( Those not affected are aquatic life criteria for nickel, silver, zinc, aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endosulfan, endrin, heptachlor, lindane, and PCBs).

The state's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  January 1990 The state submitted a preliminary draft of numeric criteria for EPA prior to starting an internal and external review of water quality standards revisions.  July 1990 The state stopped all action on the standards revisions citing concerns over the costs of compliance.  January 1991 The state submitted a draft package of standards revisions to EPA including numeric criteria to satisfy section 303( c)( 2)( B) and set a date of June 1991 for final adoption.

This proposed rulemaking would Federally promulgate the criteria necessary to bring the State into full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). To fully protect State designated uses, and to ensure that the required criteria are adopted, EPA proposes to apply broadly the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b). At a minimum, EPA proposes to apply, to all appropriate State waters, the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b) for all priority toxic pollutants which are not the subject of approved State criteria. EPA also proposes to promulgate Federal criteria for priority toxic pollutants where any previously approved State criteria are insufficiently stringent to fully protect all designated uses, or where such previously approved State criteria are not applicable to all appropriate State designated uses. EPA invites public comment regarding any specific priority pollutants or water bodies for which Federal criteria may not be necessary to protect State designated uses.

For reasons which are fully discussed in the preamble, EPA has not attempted to determine the specific priority pollutants and water bodies that require criteria. However, EPA has determined that at least some Federal criteria are necessary to protect designated uses. This determination is supported by information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present in surface waters at levels that can reasonably be expected to interfere with State designated uses. For some priority toxic pollutants, available data clearly demonstrate use impairment and the need for toxics criteria. For most priority toxic pollutants, however, available data on the discharge and presence of priority toxic pollutants are spatially and temporally limited. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the data for many of these pollutants are sufficient to satisfy the " reasonable expectation" test established in section 303( c)( 2)( B). The information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present and that Federal criteria are necessary may be summarized as follows:  Priority toxic pollutants on the state section 304( 1) short and mini lists for which State criteria have not been adopted and approved, including metals.  State efforts since 1987 to adopt additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants, as described above. The State has initiated ( but not completed) efforts to adopt new or revised chemical specific, numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants. These efforts represent evidence of the State's recognition of the need for numeric criteria for these priority toxic pollutants.  STORET data indicating the presence in surface water of priority toxic pollutants which are not currently covered with approved state criteria.

Missouri has not been included in today's proposed rulemaking because the State has adopted revised criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval.

The State's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  March 17, 1989 Missouri Clean Water Commission adopted additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for aquatic life use protection.  April 15, 1989 The adopted criteria became effective under State law.  October 13, 1989 EPA approved criteria with a recommendation that Missouri review the need for additional human health criteria.  August 6, 1990 The State held a public meeting to discuss human health criteria revisions.  August 23, 1990 The State scheduled a public hearing and adoption before the Missouri Clean Water Commission for October 23, 1990.  December 12, 1990. Clean Water Commission adopts water quality standards.  January 30, 1991. Standards sumbitted to EPA for review.  March 4, 1991. Standards become effective in State.  June 11, 1991. EPA approves standards as complying with section 303( c)( 2)( B).

EPA fully approved the criteria for priority toxic pollutants adopted by Missouri on June 11, 1991 as being consistent with Option 1 of the December 12, 1988 guidance.

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that the State has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B) it will be necessary at that time to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance.

Nebraska has not been included in today's proposed rulemaking because the State has adopted revised criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval.

The State's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  May 20, 1988 The state adopted numeric criteria for aquatic life protection for priority toxic pollutants.  August 29, 1988 The adopted criteria became effective under state law.  October 18, 1988 EPA approved Nebraska's Water Quality Standards noting that the need for additional human health criteria must be evaluated.  December 1, 1989 The state adopted some numeric priority toxic pollutant criteria for a human health use ( drinking water supply).  February 20, 1990 The adopted criteria became effective under state law.  January 17, 1990 DEC proposed human health fish consumption criteria for priority toxic pollutants.  February 16, 1990 The state adopted the proposed human health fish consumption numeric criteria.  June 27, 1990 The human health fish consumption numeric criteria became effective under state law.  August 10, 1990 The state proposed revisions to mixing zone provisions of State Water Quality Standards which affect the application of numeric criteria.  September 21, 1990 The state adopted proposed revisions to mixing zone policies.  August 2, 1991. EPA approved the revised Nebraska water quality standards, including full approval of the revised criteria for priority toxic pollutants.

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that the State has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B) it will be necessary at that time to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance.

Region 8 Colorado is included in today's proposal because, although Colorado has completed a review and adopted numeric criteria for some priority toxic pollutants in response to the statutory requirement, EPA has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). Therefore, EPA has determined for purposes of today's proposed rulemaking that the State is not currently in compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B) because it has not adopted water quality standards consistent with section 303( c)( 2)( B) which have been fully approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.

Colorado's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  June 5, 1989 Region VIII notified the State that the priority pollutant standards under consideration for adoption would not fully satisfy the requirements of section 303( c)( 2)( B).  August 17, 1989 Colorado completed its triennial review and revised the State's Basic Standards and Methodologies. The revised Standards were submitted to EPA for review on October 6, 1989. The revised Basic Standards and Methodologies included new numeric criteria for some of the priority toxic pollutants; however, not all of the priority toxic pollutants for which EPA has developed 304( a) criteria were included in the revised State rule.  January 17, 1990 Region VIII sent a letter to the State explaining the requirements for full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). The letter explained that where a State selected an option 2 approach to full compliance ( i. e., option 2 as described in EPA's December 12, 1988 guidance and the Region's January 17, 1990 letter to the State), the burden was on the State to demonstrate that additional criteria beyond those already adopted were not needed.  February 5, 1990 In a letter from the Colorado Water Quality Control Division to EPA Region VIII, Colorado notified EPA that it intended to meet the full compliance requirements by way of option 2. To date, however, the documentation supporting full compliance with option 2 has not been received.  July 9, 1990 Region VIII sent a letter to the State commenting on what the Region considered to be needed revisions to the State's Basic Standards and Methodologies. In the letter, the Region again advised the State that the current toxics provisions of the Basic Standards and Methodologies were incomplete and subject to the federal promulgation. The letter explained the Agency's approach to the upcoming promulgation, and the proposed regulatory language and criteria values to be promulgated were enclosed for State review.  July 12, 1990 In a memorandum to the State, Region VIII provided additional information on compliance with the toxic requirements and the upcoming federal promulgation. The memorandum included a listing of EPA published and modified toxics criteria which could be used in proposing needed amendments to the existing toxics provisions in the Basic Standards and Methodologies ( modified criteria were based on the most recent information in IRIS).  August 13, 1990 Region VIII sent an improved version of the toxics criteria chart to the State staff.  September 19, 1990. Region VIII sent to the State a " strawman" data analysis which provided stream specific information regarding the priority toxic pollutants that may require adoption of criteria to satisfy the option 2 full compliance requirements of section 303( c)( 2)( B).  February 21, 1991. The State proposed amendments to the Basic Standards and Methodologies for its July triennial review hearing. The proposed amendments include: ( 1) Revisions and additions to the existing aquatic life criteria, and ( 2) application of EPA's human health criteria to all class 1 waters and any class 2 waters which provide an exposure pathway via consumption of contaminated aquatic organisms and/ or drinking water.  May 21, 1991. Region VIII sent a letter to the State detailing three deficiencies in the State's February 21, 1991 proposed revisions to the Basic Standards and Methodologies: ( 1) Failure to explain why health based standards applicable to water supply segments were not included for more than 40 priority toxic pollutants addressed by section 304( a) guidance, ( 2) failure to explain why health based standards applicable to aquatic life segments were not included for more than 20 priority toxic pollutants addressed by section 304( a) guidance, and ( 3) failure to finally resolve within the Basic Standards and Methodologies the applicability of: ( a) The numeric aquatic life and human health standards for inorganics, and ( b) certain human health numeric standards ( i. e., those that address human exposure from water and fish consumption) for organics. The Region VIII letter notified the State that these deficiencies would need to be addressed to satisfy the full compliance requirements and to ensure that Colorado would not be affected by the Federal section 303( c)( 2)( B) promulgation.  July 1, 1991. The State held a public hearing on the proposed standards revisions. At the hearing, EPA submitted written testimony that identified the specific issues and options related to section 303( c)( 2)( B) compliance.  August 20, 1991. In a letter to the State, EPA Region VIII approved the August 17, 1989 toxics criteria adopted by Colorado as partially fulfilling the requirements of section 303( c)( 2)( B). The letter clearly indicated that additional State action would be required to achieve full compliance.  October 8, 1991. The State Water Quality Control Commission adopted additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants, including criteria for all such toxics addressed by EPA section 304( a) criteria guidance. The adopted standards were intended to resolve all issues related to section 303( c)( 2)( B) compliance. Because EPA has not yet had sufficient opportunity to review and approve these standards, today's proposal is based on the standards previously adopted by the State on August 17, 1989.

This proposed rulemaking would Federally promulgate the criteria necessary to bring the State into full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). To fully protect State designated uses, and to ensure that the required criteria are adopted, EPA proposes to apply broadly the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b). At a minimum, EPA proposes to apply, to all appropriate State waters, the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b) for all priority toxic pollutants which are not the subject of approved State criteria. EPA also proposes to promulgate Federal criteria for priority toxic pollutants where any previously approved State criteria are insufficiently stringent to fully protect all designated uses, or where such previously approved State criteria are not applicable to all appropriate State designated uses. For example, to fully protect aquatic life uses from the impacts of inorganic priority toxic pollutants ( including metals), EPA proposes to promulgate aquatic life criteria for only those particular segments and inorganic substances for which State aquatic life criteria have not been applied. EPA invites public comment regarding any specific priority pollutants or water bodies for which Federal criteria may not be necessary to protect State designated uses.

For reasons which are fully discussed in the preamble, EPA has not attempted to determine the specific priority pollutants and water bodies that require criteria. However, EPA has determined that at least some Federal criteria are necessary to protect designated uses. This determination is supported by information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present in surface waters at levels that can reasonably be expected to interfere with State designated uses. For some priority toxic pollutants, available data clearly demonstrate use impairment and the need for toxics criteria. For most priority toxic pollutants, however, available data on the discharge and presence of priority toxic pollutants are spatially and temporally limited. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the data for many of these pollutants are sufficient to satisfy the " reasonable expectation" test established in section 303( c)( 2)( B). The information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present and that Federal criteria are necessary may be summarized as follows:  State efforts since 1987 to adopt additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants, as described above. These efforts represent evidence of the State's recognition of the need for numeric criteria for these priority toxic pollutants.  Presence in surface waters of the State of priority pollutants for which sufficient State numeric criteria have not been adopted, based on surface water monitoring data in STORET.  Discharge to surface waters of priority pollutants for which sufficient State numeric criteria have not been adopted, based on data in the Toxics Release Inventory data base and/ or the Permit Compliance System data base.

North Dakota has not been included in today's proposed rulemaking because the State has adopted revised criteria in response to the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval.

The State's response to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  May 1, 1989. North Dakota completed its triennial review and revised the State's standards. The revised standards were submitted to EPA for review on September 20, 1989. The revised standards included new numeric criteria for some of the priority toxic pollutants; however, not all of the priority toxic pollutants for which EPA has developed 304( a) criteria were included in the revised State rule.  January 17, 1990. Region VIII sent a letter to the State explaining the requirements for full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). The letter explained that the burden was on the State to demonstrate that additional criteria beyond those already adopted were not needed.  February 7, 1990. In a letter from the North Dakota Water Supply and Pollution Control Division to EPA Region VIII, North Dakota notified EPA that it intended to meet the full compliance requirements by way of option 1 ( i. e., an option 1 approach as described in EPA's December 12, 1988 guidance document and the Region's January 17, 1990 letter to the State).  July 12, 1990. In a memorandum to the State, Region VIII provided additional information on compliance with the toxics requirements and the upcoming federal promulgation. The memorandum included a listing of EPA published and modified toxics criteria which could be used in proposing needed amendments to the existing toxics provisions in the State standards ( modified criteria were based on the most recent information in IRIS).  August 13, 1990. Region VIII sent an improved version of the toxics criteria chart to the State staff.  October 16, 1990. The Region approved the previously adopted State standards as partially fulfilling the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirements and notified the State that the standards would be considered incomplete pending completion of the full compliance requirements. The Regional WQS review letter also notified the State that the incomplete portions of the State rule would be subject to the proposed federal promulgation.  November 15, 1990. North Dakota adopted additional standards for the priority toxic pollutants. The amended standards include criteria for all of the priority pollutants for which EPA has published 304( a) criteria plus additional criteria based on the most recent information in EPA's IRIS data base. The amended standards meet the requirements for full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). The amended standards became effective February 1, 1991, and the standards were submitted by the State for EPA review and approval on February 25, 1991.  March 8, 1991. Region VIII approved the amended State water quality standards and advised the State that the amended standards met the full compliance requirements of section 303( c)( 2)( B).

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that the State has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B) it will be necessary at that time to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance. South Dakota has not been included in today's proposed rulemakingbecause the State has adopted revised criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the section 393( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval.

South Dakota's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  October 8, 1987. South Dakota completed its triennial review and revised the State's Standards. The revised Standards were submitted to EPA for review on May 5, 1989. The revised Standards included a reference to EPA's Water Ouality Criteria, 1986 as the numeric criteria incorporated in State Standards; however, the State did not include or identify certain information needed to distinguish which specific EPA criteria had been adopted as State Standards.  January 17, 1990. Region VIII sent a letter to the State explaining the requirements for full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). The letter explained that incorporation of EPA's national criteria into State Standards by reference to EPA's Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 was acceptable; however, such a reference would have to include sufficient information to identify the specific numeric criteria which comprised State Standards. The needed information was not provided prior to today's proposal.  February 13, 1990. Region VIII sent a letter to the State further explaining the issues that would have to be clarified before the Region would be able to grant final approval of the toxics portion of the State water quality standards.  March 8, 1990. South Dakota further amended the State Standards to clarify the role of the Department of Natural Resources in applying the criteria in Quality Criteria for Water, 1986; however, the new amendments did not address the specific information needed to satisfy the full compliance requirements for section 303( c)( 2)( B).  July 12, 1990. Region VIII sent additional information to the State on compliance with the toxics requirements and the upcoming federal promulgation. The memorandum included a listing of EPA published and modified toxics criteria which could be used in proposing needed amendments to the existing toxics provisions in the State standards ( modified criteria were based on the most recent information in IRIS).  August 13, 1990. Region VIII sent an improved version of the toxics criteria chart to the State staff.  November 6, 1990. Region VIII sent additional information to the State further delineating the specific application information that would be needed to achieve approval of the toxics provisions of the water quality standards.  March 6, 1991. In a letter from the Division of Environmental Regulation, South Dakota provided a complete interpretation of the toxics control provisions in section 74: 03: 02: 14, the section of the South Dakota water quality standards which incorporates EPA's Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 by reference. The State's letter included a listing of the specific criteria which are considered to be standards of the State. The list included all of the published 304( a) criteria and identified the uses to which the criteria applied.  March 13, 1991. The Region approved the adopted State criteria as fulfilling the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirements.

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that the State has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B) it will be necessary at that time to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance.

Utah has not been included in today's proposed rulemaking because the State has adopted revised criteria in response to the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval.

The State's response to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  April 21, 1988. Utah completed its triennial review and revised the State's standards. The revised standards were submitted to EPA for review on February 10, 1989. The revised standards included new numeric criteria for some of the priority toxic pollutants for which EPA has developed 304( a) criteria were included in the revised State rule.  January 17, 1990. Region VIII sent a letter to the State enplaning the requirements for full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). The letter explained that the burden was on the State to demonstrate that additional criteria beyond those already adopted were not needed.  January 31, 1990. In a letter from the Utah Bureau of Water Pollution Control to EPA Region VIII, Utah notified EPA that it intended to meet the full compliance requirements by way of option 1 ( i. e., an option 1 approach as described in EPA's December 12, 1988 guidance document and the Region's January 17, 1990 letter to the State).  July 12, 1990. In a memorandum to the State, Region VIII provided additional information on compliance with the toxics requirements and the upcoming federal promulgation. The memorandum included a listing of EPA published and modified toxics criteria which could be used in proposing needed amendments to the existing toxics provisions in the State standards ( modified criteria were based on the most recent information in IRIS).  August 13, 1990. Region VIII sent an improved version of the toxics criteria chart to the State staff.  November 29, 1990. The Region approved the previously adopted State standards as partially fulfilling the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirements and notified the State that the standards would be considered incomplete pending completion of the full compliance requirements. The Regional water quality standards review letter also notified the State that the incomplete portions of the State rule would be subject to the provisions of the proposed federal promulgation.  January 18, 1991. Utah adopted additional standards for the priority toxic pollutants. The amended standards include criteria for all of the priority pollutants for which EPA has published 304( a) criteria. The amended standards meet the requirements for full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). The amended standards were submitted by the State for EPA review and approval on February 13, 1991.  March 8, 1991. Region VIII approved the amended State water quality standards and advised the State that the amended standards met the full compliance requirements of section 303( c)( 2)( B).

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that the State has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B) it will be necessary at that time to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance.

Wyoming has not been included in today's proposed rulemaking because the State has adopted revised criteria in response to the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval.

The State's response to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  January 17, 1990. Region VIII sent a letter to the State explaining the requirements for full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). The letter explained that the burden was on the State to demonstrate that additional criteria beyond those already adopted were not needed.  February 12, 1990. In a letter from the Wyoming Water Quality Division of the Department of Environmental Quality, Wyoming notified EPA that it intended to meet the full compliance requirements by way of option 1 ( i. e., an option 1 approach as described in EPA's December 12, 1988 guidance document and the Region's January 17, 1990 letter to the State).  May 29, 1990. Region VIII provided written comments for the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council triennial review hearing. The Region's comments further explained the requirements for full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B).  July 12, 1990. In a memorandum to the State, Region VIII provided additional information on compliance with the toxics requirements and the upcoming federal promulgation. The memorandum included a listing of EPA published and modified toxics criteria which could be used in proposing needed amendments to the existing toxics provisions in the State standards ( modified criteria were based on the most recent information in IRIS).  July 19, 1990. Region VIII provided additional written comment to the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council. The Region's comments provided further information on the toxics requirements, including specific lists of published and modified criteria for the priority pollutants which would meet the full compliance requirements.  August 13, 1990. Region VIII sent an improved version of the toxics criteria chart to the State staff.  October 3, 1990. Wyoming adopted additional standards for the priority toxic pollutants. The amended standards include criteria for all of the priority pollutants for which EPA has published 304( a) criteria plus additional criteria based on the most recent information in EPA's IRIS data base. The amended standards meet the requirements for full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). The amended standards became effective November 29, 1990, and the standards were submitted by the State for EPA review and approval on December 24, 1990. Clarification of the legal standing of the newly adopted rule was provided with a memorandum from the State dated January 12, 1991.  March 8, 1991. Region VIII approved the amended State water quality standards and advised the State that the amended standards met the full compliance requirements of section 303( c)( 2)( B).

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that the State has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B) it will be necessary to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance.

Montana has not been included in today's proposed rulemaking because the State has adopted revised criteria in response to the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval. The State's response to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  September 23, 1988. The State adopted final water quality standards which included numeric criteria for the priority toxic pollutants ( by reference to EPA's Quality Criteria for Water, 1986 through update # 2 1987 including supporting information).  December 9, 1988. The State submitted the adopted water quality standards with a State Attorney General certification to EPA for approval/ disapproval.  March 8, 1989. EPA approved the portion of the revised State water quality standards which responded to the requirements of section 303( c)( 2)( B) ( other portions of the revised standards were disapproved).

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that the State has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B) it will be necessary to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance.

Region 9 American Samoa has not been included in today's proposed rulemaking because it has adopted revised criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval.

American Samoa's response to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  January 1990. American Samoa submitted draft water quality standards revisions to EPA and the public for review.  February 1990. American Samoa held a public hearing on its proposed water quality standards revisions.  September 7, 1990. The American Samoa Environmental Commission adopted its proposed water quality standards revisions which include numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants.  September 20, 1990. American Samoa submitted the adopted water quality standards to EPA for approval/ disapproval.  September 25, 1990. American Samoa submitted the State Attorney General certification.  September 27, 1990. EPA approved the revised American Samoa water quality standards, including full approval of the revised numeric criteria for priority pollutants.

EPA fully approved the criteria for priority toxic pollutants adopted by American Samoa on September 27, 1990 based on a determination that the criteria are consistent with option 1 of the December 12, 1988 section 303( c)( 2)( B) guidance document.

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that American Samoa has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B), it will be necessary at that time to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance. Arizona is included in today's proposal because, although the State adopted numeric criteria for some priority toxic pollutants before the 1987 amendments, the State has not completed a review of their numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the statutory requirement and EPA has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). Therefore, EPA has determined for purposes of today's proposed rulemaking that the State is not currently in compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B) because it has not adopted water quality standards consistent with section 303( c)( 2)( B) which have been fully approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.

The State's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  Late 1988. The State submitted a series of discussion papers to EPA and the public.  June 7, 1989. The State submitted draft water quality standards revisions to EPA for review prior to issuing proposed standards for public comment.  December 11, 1989. The State transmitted a Surface Water Quality Standards Triennial Review Briefing Book, dated December 8, 1989, to EPA and the public.  February 15, 1990. The State submitted, to EPA and the public, draft proposed revisions to its Surface Water Quality Standards.  March 16, 1990. The State submitted Proposed Surface Water Quality Standards Rules to EPA and the public.  During 1988 90, the State held several public meetings and roundtables regarding the proposed water quality standards.  October 26, 1990. Arizona prepared revised draft water quality standards which were released for comment October 29, 1990.  December 14, 1990. EPA provided written comments to the States.  January 15, 1991. Arizona prepared a re draft of the water quality standards for review and comment.  February 13, 1991. EPA provided written comments to the States.  May 8, 1991. Arizona approval by the Governor's Regulatory Review Council on May 7, 1991 of the Navigable Water Quality Standards proposed rules and the Economic Impact Statement.

Also announced the schedule of oral proceedings and availability of the proposed rules.

Today's proposed rulemaking would Federally promulgate the criteria necessary to bring the State into full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). To fully protect State designated uses, and to ensure that the required criteria are adopted, EPA proposes to apply broadly the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b). At a minimum, EPA proposes to apply, to all appropriate State waters, the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b) for all priority toxic pollutants which are not included in approved State criteria. EPA also proposes to promulgate the Sec. 131.36( b) criteria where any previously approved State criteria are insufficiently stringent to fully protect all designated uses, or where such previously approved State criteria are not applicable to all waters with relevant State designated uses. EPA invites public comment regarding any specific priority pollutants or water bodies for which Federal criteria may not be necessary to protect State designated uses.

For reasons which are fully discussed in the preamble, EPA has not attempted to determine the specific priority pollutants and water bodies that require criteria. However, EPA has determined that at least some Federal criteria are necessary to protect designated uses. This determination is supported by information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present in surface waters at levels that can reasonably be expected to interfere with State designated uses. For some priority toxic pollutants, available data clearly demonstrate use impairment and the need for section 303( c)( 2)( B) criteria. For most priority toxic pollutants, however, available data on the discharge and presence of such pollutants are spatially and temporally limited. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the data for many of these pollutants are sufficient to satisfy the " reasonable expectation" test established in section 303( c)( 2)( B). The information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present and that section 303( c)( 2)( B) criteria are necessary may be summarized as follows:  Priority toxic pollutants on the State Section 304( l) lists ( as updated), and supporting documentation, for which State criteria have not been adopted and approved, including metals, dioxin, and some organics.  State efforts since 1987 to adopt additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants, as described above. The State has initiated ( but not completed) efforts to adopt new or revised chemical specific, numeric criteria for 126 priority toxic pollutants. These efforts represent evidence of the State's recognition of the need for numeric criteria for these priority toxic pollutants.  STORET data indicating the presence in surface waters of a majority of the priority toxic pollutants which are not covered with approved State criteria.  Discharge to surface waters of priority pollutants for which sufficient State numeric criteria have not been adopted, based on data in the Toxics Release Inventory database and/ or the Permit Compliance System database.

California is included in today's proposal because, although the State has completed a review and adopted numeric criteria for some priority toxic pollutants for some waters in response to the statutory requirement, EPA has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). Therefore, EPA has determined for purposes of today's proposed rulemaking that the State is not currently in compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B) because it has not adopted water quality standards consistent with section 303( c)( 2)( B) which have been fully approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.

For ocean waters, the State adopted revised criteria on March 22, 1990, and EPA fully approved those criteria on June 23, 1990. Regarding inland waters and bays and estuaries, the State adopted numeric criteria for some priority toxic pollutants before the 1987 amendments and a few site specific criteria since 1987. Included among these criteria are numeric criteria for copper, cadmium and zinc applicable to the Sacramento River and its tributaries upstream of Hamilton City adopted by the State on August 16, 1984, and approved by EPA on August 7, 1985. Since the 1987 amendments, the State adopted numeric monthly mean and maximum criteria for selenium in the San Joaquin River from the mouth of the Merced River to Vernalis and monthly mean criteria in flows to Grasslands Water District, San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, and Los Banos State Wildlife Area on September 21, 1989; EPA approved these criteria on April 13, 1990, and, at the same time, disapproved selenium criteria for other locations. These approved numeric criteria comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B) and are not amended by today's proposed rulemaking. Subsequent to these specific efforts, the State completed a review of their numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for State inland waters and bays and estuaries and transmitted them to EPA. EPA has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). In addition, several parties have petitioned State Court to restrain the SWRCB from utilizing the standards for inland waters and bays and estuaries.

The State's actions, regarding inland waters and bays and estuaries, to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  October 6, 1989. The State issued a staff report proposing methodologies for development of water quality criteria for statewide plans.  December 1, 1989. EPA submitted written comments to State on its proposed methodology.  January 29, 1990. The State issued draft water quality standards for inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries for EPA and public review.  February 28 and March 5, 1990. The State held public hearings on proposed standards revisions.  March 29, 1990. EPA submitted written comments to the State on proposed standards revisions.  August 16, 1990. The State held a public workshop on development and implementation of standards for agricultural drains and ephemeral streams. ( EPA testified.)  August 22, 1990. EPA submitted written comments to the State on development and implementation of standards for agricultural drains and ephemeral streams.  November 2, 1990. The State issued revised draft water quality standards for EPA and public review.  December 7, 1990. EPA submitted written comments on the revised draft water quality standards.  December 10, 1990. The State held a hearing on the revised draft standards. ( EPA testified.)  February 8, 1991. EPA provided written comments to the State re: the agricultural drains section of the Inland Surface Waters Plan.  March 26, 1991. The State issued drafts of the Statewide Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries.  March 27, 1991. EPA provided written comments to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board re: proposed interim objectives for toxic pollutants in the South Bay.  April 10, 1991. EPA provided written comments to the State re: The Statewide Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries.  April 10, 1991. EPA provided written comments to the State re: EPA's position on how to proceed with dioxin related programs.  April 11, 1991. The State adopted the Statewide Waters Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Water and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries.  May 10, 1991. The State transmitted to EPA the Statewide Waters Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Water and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries.

Today's proposed rulemaking would Federally promulgate the criteria necessary to bring the State into full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). To fully protect State designated uses, and to ensure that the required criteria are adopted, EPA proposes to apply broadly the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b). At a minimum, EPA proposes to apply, to all State inland waters and bays and estuaries, the criteria in proposed Sec. 13l. 36( b) for all priority toxic pollutants which are not included in EPA approved State criteria. EPA also proposes to promulgate section 303( c)( 2)( B) criteria for priority toxic pollutants where any previously approved State criteria are insufficiently stringent to fully protect all designated uses, or where such previously approved State criteria are not applicable to all waters with relevant State designated uses. EPA invites public comment regarding any specific priority pollutants or water bodies for which Federal criteria may not be necessary to protect State designated uses.

For reasons which are fully discussed in the preamble, EPA has not attempted to determine the specific priority pollutants and water bodies that require criteria. However, EPA has determined that at least some additional Federal criteria are necessary to protect designated uses. This determination is supported by information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present in surface waters at levels that can reasonably be expected to interfere with State designated uses. For some priority toxic pollutants, available data clearly demonstrate use impairment and the need for section 303( c)( 2)( B) criteria. For most priority toxic pollutants, however, available data on the discharge and presence of such pollutants are spatially and temporally limited. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the data for many of these pollutants are sufficient to satisfy the " reasonable expectation" test established in section 303( c)( 2)( B). The information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present and that section 303( c)( 2)( B) criteria are necessary may be summarized as follows:  priority toxic pollutants discussed in the State Section 304( 1) lists, and supporting documentation, for which State criteria have not been adopted and approved, including metals, dioxin, and some organics,  State efforts since 1987 to adopt additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for inland waters and bays and estuaries, as described above. The State has completed efforts to adopt new or revised chemical specific, numeric criteria for 68 priority toxic pollutants. These efforts represent evidence of the State's recognition of the need for numeric criteria for these priority toxic pollutants.  STORET data indicating the presence in inland waters and bays and estuaries of priority toxic pollutants which are not covered with approved State criteria ( e. g., detection of more than 40 priority toxic pollutants in the water column).  Discharge to surface waters of priority pollutants for which sufficient State numeric criteria have not been adopted, based on data in the Toxics Release Inventory database and/ or the Permit Compliance System database. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ( CNMI) is included in today's proposal because, although the State adopted numeric criteria for some priority toxic pollutants before the 1987 amendments, the State has not completed a review of their numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the statutory requirement and EPA has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). Therefore, EPA has determined for purposes of today's proposed rulemaking that the State is not currently in compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B) because it has not adopted water quality standards consistent with section 303( c)( 2)( B) which have been fully approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.

The Commonwealth's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirements can be summarized as follows:  March 22, 1990. The Commonwealth transmitted a letter to EPA indicating that its water quality standards revision process had been delayed.  March 28, 1991. CNMI submitted draft water quality standards revisions to EPA for review.  May 22, 1991. EPA provided comments to CNMI re: the draft revised standards.

Today's proposed rulemaking would Federally promulgate the criteria necessary to bring the State into full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). To fully protect State designated uses, and to ensure that the required criteria are adopted, EPA proposes to apply broadly the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b). At a minimum, EPA proposes to apply, to all appropriate State waters, the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b) for all priority toxic pollutants which are not included in approved State criteria. EPA also proposes to promulgate the Sec. 131.36( b) criteria where any previously approved State criteria are insufficiently stringent to fully protect all designated uses, or where such previously approved State criteria are not applicable to all waters with relevant State designated uses. EPA invites public comment regarding any specific priority pollutants or water bodies for which Federal criteria may not be necessary to protect State designated uses.

For reasons which are fully discussed in the preamble, EPA has not attempted to determine the specific priority pollutants and water bodies that require criteria. However, EPA has determined that at least some Federal criteria are necessary to protect designated uses. This determination is supported by information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present in surface waters at levels that can reasonably be expected to interfere with State designated uses. For some priority toxic pollutants, available data clearly demonstrate use impairment and the need for toxics criteria. For most priority toxic pollutants, however, available data on the discharge and presence of priority toxic pollutants are spatially and temporally limited. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the data for many of these pollutants are sufficient to satisfy the " reasonable expectation" test established in section 303( c)( 2)( B). The information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present and that Federal criteria are necessary may be summarized as follows:  CNMI efforts since 1987 to adopt additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants, as described above. CNMI has initiated ( but not completed) efforts to adopt new or revised chemical specific, numeric criteria for 108 priority toxic pollutants. These efforts represent evidence of the CNMI's recognition of the need for numeric criteria for these priority toxic pollutants.  STORET data indicating the presence in CNMI waters of priority toxic pollutants which are not covered with approved CNMI criteria.

Guam has not been included in today's proposed rulemaking because Guam has adopted revised criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval.

Guam's response to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  July 2, 1987. Guam adopted revised water quality standards which include numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants.  August 1987. Guam submitted the adopted water quality standards with an Attorney General certification to EPA for approval/ disapproval.  September 30, 1987. EPA approved the revised Guam water quality standards, including full approval of the revised numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants. EPA fully approved the criteria for priority toxic pollutants adopted by Guam on July 2, 1987. It has been determined since that time that the criteria are consistent with option 1 of the December 12, 1988 section 303( c)( 2)( B) guidance document.

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that Guam has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B), it will be necessary at that time to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance.

Hawaii is included in today's proposal because, although the State has completed a review and adopted numeric criteria for some priority toxic pollutants in response to the statutory requirement, EPA has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). Therefore, EPA has determined for purposes of today's proposed rulemaking that the State is not currently in compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B) because it has not adopted water quality standards consistent with section 303( c)( 2)( B) which have been fully approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.

The State's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirements can be summarized as follows:  January 8, 1990. The State adopted revised criteria.  February 9, 1990. Hawaii submitted the adopted water quality standards with a State Attorney General certification to EPA for approval/ disapproval.  May 9, 1990. EPA approved Hawaii's water quality standards noting that omission of human health limits for five toxic metals precluded full satisfaction of the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement.  May 29, 1990. The State responded to the EPA approval indicating plans to adopt human health limits for the five toxic metals.  July 13, 1990. EPA clarified portions of the May 1990 approval letter.

Because the State has adopted criteria for priority toxic pollutants using an option l approach as described in EPA's December 12, 1988 guidance document EPA is taking an approach of proposing criteria for all remaining priority toxic pollutants which have been the subject of section 304( a)( 1) criteria recommendations. EPA believes that the discharge or presence of these priority toxic pollutants can reasonably be expected to interfere with designated uses in the State and that Federal criteria therefore are necessary to protect Hawaii designated uses. This conclusion is based on the following information in the record:  priority toxic pollutants on the State section 304( l) lists for which State criteria have not been adopted and approved, including these metals,  STORET data indicating the presence in surface waters of these priority toxic pollutants.

Nevada is included in today's proposal because, although the State has completed a review and adopted numeric criteria for some priority toxic pollutants in response to the statutory requirement, EPA has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). Therefore, EPA has determined for purposes of today's proposed rulemaking that the State is not currently in compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B) because it has not adopted water quality standards consistent with section 303( c)( 2)( B) which have been fully approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.

The State's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  May 24, 1988. The State held a public hearing on it's proposed water quality standards revisions.  September 12, 1988. The State submitted draft water quality standards revisions to EPA and the public for review.  September 20, 1988. EPA provided comments to Nevada regarding its proposed water quality standards for toxics.  October 21, 1988. The State submitted revisions to the Nevada toxic material definition and bioassay procedures to EPA and the public for review.  November 10, 1988. The State held a public hearing on its proposed water quality standards revisions.  November 29, 1988. The State held a public hearing on its proposed water quality standards revisions. ( Revisions to the definition of " toxic" were adopted following this hearing.)  May 31, 1989. The State submitted draft water quality standards revisions to EPA and the public for review.  June 22, 1989. EPA provided comments to Nevada regarding its proposed standards for toxics.  August 9, 1989. The State submitted draft water quality standards revisions to EPA and the public for review.  August 22, 1989. The State submitted draft water quality standards revisions and rationale to EPA.  September 18, 1989. EPA provided comments on Nevada's proposed water quality standards for toxics.  September 27, 1989. The State held a public hearing on its proposed water quality standards revisions. ( Revisions to the bioassay requirements as part of the narrative toxics standard were adopted following this hearing.)  February 26, 1990. The State submitted draft water quality standards revisions to EPA and the public for review.  March 27, 1990. EPA provided comments on Nevada's proposed February 26, 1990 toxics standards.  March 28, 1990. The State held a public hearing on its proposed water quality standards revisions.  May 2, 1990. EPA provided comments regarding the latest proposed standards revisions.  May 2, 1990. The State adopted water quality standards revision which included some numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants.  August 23, 1990. State transmitted approved water quality standards revisions without a State Attorney General Certification to EPA for approval/ disapproval.  September 28, 1990. The State Attorney General certified the May 2, 1990 adoption.  January 16, 1991. EPA approved in part and disapproved in part standards adopted by the State and notified them of the actions they needed to take pursuant to the disapproval and that they had not fully satisfied section 303( c)( 2)( B).  March 14, 1991. The State responded to the January 1991 approval/ disapproval of standards.

Today's proposed rulemaking would Federally promulgate the criteria necessary to bring the State into full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). To fully protect State designated uses, and to ensure that the required criteria are adopted, EPA proposes to apply broadly the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b). At a minimum, EPA proposes to apply, to all appropriate State waters, the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b) for all priority toxic pollutants which are not included in approved State criteria. EPA also proposes to promulgate the Sec. 131.36( b) criteria where any previously approved State criteria are insufficiently stringent to fully protect all designated uses, or where such previously approved State criteria are not applicable to all waters with relevant State designated uses. EPA invites public comment regarding any specific priority pollutants or water bodies for which Federal criteria may not be necessary to protect State designated uses.

For reasons which are fully discussed in the preamble, EPA has not attempted to determine the specific priority pollutants and water bodies that require criteria. However, EPA has determined that at least some Federal criteria are necessary to protect designated uses. This determination is supported by information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present in surface waters at levels that can reasonably be expected to interfere with State designated uses. For some priority toxic pollutants, available data clearly demonstrate use impairment and the need for criteria. For most priority toxic pollutants, however, available data on the discharge and presence of such pollutants are spatially and temporally limited. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the data for many of these pollutants are sufficient to satisfy the " reasonable expectation" test established in section 303( c)( 2)( B). The information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present and that section 303( c)( 2)( B) criteria are necessary may be summarized as follows:  State efforts since 1987 to adopt additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants, as described above. The State has initiated ( but not completed) efforts to adopt new or revised chemical specific, numeric criteria for 108 priority toxic pollutants. These efforts represent evidence of the State's recognition of the need for numeric criteria for these priority toxic pollutants.  Presence in surface waters of the State of priority pollutants for which sufficient State numeric criteria have not been adopted, based on surface water monitoring data in STORET.  Discharge to surface waters of priority pollutants for which sufficient State numeric criteria have not been adopted, based on data in the Toxics Release Inventory database and/ or the Permit Compliance System database.

The Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands ( Palau) has not been included in today's proposed rulemaking because Palau has adopted revised criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval.

Palau's response to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  November 7, 1990. Palau adopted revised water quality standards which include numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants.  December 12, 1990. Palau submitted the adopted water quality standards with an Attorney General certification to EPA for approval/ disapproval.  January 11, 1991. EPA approved the revised Palau water quality standards, including full approval of the revised numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants.

EPA fully approved the criteria for priority toxic pollutants adopted by Palau on January 11, 1991 based on a determination that the criteria are consistent with option l of the December 12, 1988 section 303( c)( 2)( B) guidance document.

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that Palau has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B), it will be necessary at that time to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance.

Region 10 Alaska is included in today's proposal because although the State had previously adopted all section 304( a) criteria by reference, the State Attorney General has decided that the adoption by reference is invalid. Based on information in the record ( see below), EPA has reason to believe that at least some criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). Therefore, EPA has determined for purposes of today's proposed rulemaking that the State is not currently in compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B) because it has not adopted water quality standards consistent with section 303( c)( 2)( B) which have been fully approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.

Alaska's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  December 20, 1989. The State submitted draft water quality standards revisions to EPA and the public for review.  April 6, 1990. The State held public hearings and accepted written comments on its proposed water quality standards revisions through this date.  On November 4, 1991, Region 10 sent a letter to the State partially approving the State's incorporation by reference of EPA's toxic pollutant criteria; and noting the deficiencies which will be included in EPA's proposed rulemaking ( e. g. Alaska's failure to adopt a human health criteria).

This proposed rulemaking would federally promulgate the criteria necessary to bring the State into full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). To fully protect State designated uses, and to ensure that the required criteria are adopted, EPA proposes to apply broadly the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b). At a minimum, EPA proposes to apply, to all appropriate State waters, the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b) for all priority toxic pollutants which are not the subject of approved State criteria. EPA also proposes to promulgate Federal criteria for priority toxic pollutants where any previously approved State criteria are insufficiently stringent to fully protect all designated uses, or where such previously approved State criteria are not applicable to all appropriate State designated uses. EPA invites public comment regarding any specific priority pollutants or water bodies for which Federal criteria may not be necessary to protect State designated uses.

For reasons which are fully discussed in the preamble, EPA has not attempted to determine the specific priority pollutants and water bodies that require criteria. However, EPA has determined that at least some Federal criteria are necessary to protect designated uses. This determination is supported by information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present in surface waters at levels that can reasonably be expected to interfere with State designated uses. For some priority toxic pollutants, available data clearly demonstrate use impairment and the need for toxics criteria. For most priority toxic pollutants, however, available data on the discharge and presence of priority toxic pollutants are spatially and temporally limited. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the data for many of these pollutants are sufficient to satisfy the " reasonable expectation" test established in section 303( c)( 2)( B). The information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present and that Federal criteria are necessary may be summarized as follows:  State efforts since 1987 to adopt additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants, as described above. The State has initiated ( but not completed) efforts to adopt new or revised chemical specific, numeric criteria for 103 priority toxic pollutants. These efforts represent evidence of the State's recognition of the need for numeric criteria for these priority toxic pollutants.  STORET data indicating the presence in surface waters of priority toxic pollutants which are not currently covered with approved State criteria.  Discharge to surface waters of priority pollutants for which sufficient State numeric criteria have not been adopted, based on data in the Toxics Release Inventory database and/ or the Permit Compliance System database.

Idaho is included in today's proposal because although the State adopted some numeric criteria for human health protection for some priority toxic pollutants before the 1987 amendments, the State has not completed a review of their numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the statutory requirement. Furthermore, the State's criteria protecting human health are based only on drinking water maximum contaminant levels; fish consumption is not protected, and EPA has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). Therefore, EPA has determined for purposes of today's proposed rulemaking that the State is not currently in compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B) because it has not adopted water quality standards consistent with section 303( c)( 2)( B) which have been fully approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.

Idaho's action to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  July 23, 1990. The State submitted draft water quality standards revisions to EPA and the public for review.

This proposed rulemaking would federally promulgate the criteria necessary to bring the State into full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). To fully protect State designated uses, and to ensure that the required criteria are adopted, EPA proposes to apply broadly the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b). At a minimum, EPA proposes to apply, to all appropriate State waters, the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b) for all priority toxic pollutants which are not the subject of approved State criteria. EPA also proposes to promulgate Federal criteria for priority toxic pollutants where any previously approved State criteria are insufficiently stringent to fully protect all designated uses, or where such previously aapproved State criteria are not applicable to all appropriate State designated uses. EPA invites public comment regarding any specific priority pollutants or water bodies for which Federal criteria may not be necessary to protect State designated uses.

For reasons which are fully discussed in the preamble, EPA has not attempted to determine the specific priority pollutants and water bodies that require criteria. However, EPA has determined that at least some Federal criteria are necessary to protect designated uses. This determination is supported by information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present in surface waters at levels that can reasonably be expected to interfere with State designated uses. For some priority toxic pollutants, available data clearly demonstrate use impairment and the need for toxics criteria. For most priority toxic pollutants, however, available data on the discharge and presence of priority toxic pollutants are spatially and temporally limited. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the data for many of these pollutants are sufficient to satisfy the " reasonable expectation" test established in section 303( c)( 2)( B). The information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present and that Federal criteria are necessary may be summarized as follows:  Priority toxic pollutants on the State Section 304( l) short list for which State criteria have not been adopted and approved, including metals and some organics.  STORET data indicating the presence in surface waters of priority toxic pollutants which are not currently covered with approved State criteria.  Discharge to surface waters of priority pollutants for which sufficient State numeric criteria have not been adopted, based on data in the Toxics Release Inventory database and/ or the Permit Compliance System database.

Oregon has not been included in today's proposed rulemaking because the State has adopted revised criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement and received full EPA approval.

The State's response to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows.

 August 28, 1987. The State adopted revised water quality standards which included numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants.  January 26, 1988. The State submitted the adopted water quality standards with a State Attorney General certification to EPA for approval/ disapproval.  March 9, 1988. EPA approved the revised State water quality standards, including full approval of the revised numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants.

EPA fully approved the criteria for priority toxic pollutants adopted by Oregon on February 12, 1989 as being consistent with option 2 of the December 12, 1988 section 303( c)( 2)( B) guidance document.

If additional information is submitted during the public comment period asserting that the State has not fully complied with section 303( c)( 2)( B) it will be necessary at that time to respond to those comments and reevaluate the Agency's determination of full compliance.

Washington is included in today's proposal because although the State adopted numeric criteria for some priority toxic pollutants before the 1987 amendments, the State has not adopted numeric criteria for any human health based criteria for priority pollutants, and EPA has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B). Therefore, EPA has determined for purposes of today's proposed rulemaking that the State is not currently in compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B) because it has not adopted water quality standards consistent with section 303( c)( 2)( B) which have been fully approved by the appropriate EPA Regional Administrator.

Washington adopted 26 freshwater and marine criteria which EPA fully approved on March 4, 1988 ( see below). The State has not completed a review of their criteria for priority toxic pollutants in response to the statutory requirement and EPA has reason to believe that at least some additional criteria are necessary to comply with section 303( c)( 2)( B).

The State's actions to respond to the 1987 section 303( c)( 2)( B) requirement can be summarized as follows:  February 9, 1988. The State submitted the adopted water quality standards with a State Attorney General certification to EPA for approval/ disapproval.  March 4, 1988. EPA approved the revised State water quality standards.  July 20, 1990. Washington released its proposed water quality standards with public comments accepted through this date.

This proposed rulemaking would Federally promulgate the criteria necessary to bring the State into full compliance with section 303( c)( 2)( B). To fully protect State designated uses, and to ensure that the required criteria are adopted, EPA proposes to apply broadly the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b). At a minimum, EPA proposes to apply, to all appropriate State waters, the criteria in proposed Sec. 131.36( b) for all priority toxic pollutants which are not the subject of approved State criteria. EPA also proposes to promulgate Federal criteria for priority toxic pollutants where any previously approved State criteria are insufficiently stringent to fully protect all designated uses, or where such previously approved State criteria are not applicable to all appropriate State designated uses. EPA invites public comment regarding any specific priority pollutants or water bodies for which Federal criteria may not be necessary to protect State designated uses.

For reasons which are fully discussed in the preamble, EPA has not attempted to determine the specific priority pollutants and water bodies that require criteria. However, EPA has determined that at least some Federal criteria are necessary to protect designated uses. This determination is supported by information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present in surface waters at levels that can reasonably be expected to interfere with State designated uses. For some priority toxic pollutants, available data clearly demonstrate use impairment and the need for toxics criteria. For most priority toxic pollutants, however, available data on the discharge and presence of priority toxic pollutants are spatially and temporally limited. Nevertheless, EPA believes that the data for many of these pollutants are sufficient to satisfy the " reasonable expectation" test established in section 303( c)( 2)( B). The information in the record which demonstrates that priority toxic pollutants are discharged or present and that Federal criteria are necessary may be summarized as follows:  Priority toxic pollutants on the State Section 304( l) short list for which State criteria have not been adopted and approved, including metals and some organics.  State efforts since 1987 to adopt additional numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants, as described above. The State has initiated ( but not completed) efforts to adopt new or revised chemical specific, numeric criteria for 91 priority toxic pollutants. These efforts represent evidence of the State's recognition of the need for numeric criteria for these priority toxic pollutants.  STORET data indicating the presence in surface waters of priority toxic pollutants which are not currently covered with approved State criteria.  Discharge to surface waters of priority pollutants for which sufficient State numeric criteria have not been adopted, based on data in the Toxics Release Inventory database and/ or the Permit Compliance System database.

( FR Doc. 91 27270 Filed 11 18 91; 8: 45 am) BILLING CODE 6560 50 M Legal Publications:

Pub. Law 100 4 SEC. 308  Water Quality Act of 1987 Pub. Law 95 217 SEC. 53 54  Clean Water Act of 1977 Pub. Law 99 499  Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ( SARA); Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 Pub. Law 92 500 SEC. 2  Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 Pub. Law 80 845 SEC. 303 304 301 101 307 305 510  Federal Water Pollution Control Act ( Act of 6/ 30/ 48)"

*******************************************************************************************************************


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 32383]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12126]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Forty-Fourth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206 (SC-206)
Aeronautical Information and Meteorological Data Link Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Forty-Fourth RTCA Special Committee 206 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Forty-Fourth RTCA Special Committee 206 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 13-17, 2016 from 8:30 a.m.-5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at NAV CANADA, 1601 Tom Roberts
Avenue, Gloucester, ON, Canada K1V1E6.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Karan Hofmann, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
330-0680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206. The agenda
will include the following:

Monday, June 13, 2016

1. Opening Plenary
2. Opening remarks: DFO, RTCA, Chairman, and Host
3. Attendees' introductions
4. Review and approval of meeting agenda
5. Approval of previous meeting minutes (Atlanta, GA)
6. Action item review
    a. Sub-Groups' reports
    b. SG1/6: MASPS
    c. SG4: EDR MOPS
    d. SG5: FIS-B MOPS
    e. SG7: Winds Guidance
7. Industry presentations
    a. 1090 Spectrum Congestion Analysis--FAA
    b. FIS-B Data Source Transition--Harris
8. Sub-Groups meetings (1:00 p.m.)

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

1. Sub-Groups meetings (8:30 a.m.)

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

1. Plenary SG6 MASPS Review for FRAC release (Sub-Group meetings will
resume if review ends early) (8:30 a.m.)
2. Sub-Groups meetings (1:00 p.m.)

Thursday, June 16, 2016

1. Sub-Groups meetings (8:30 a.m.)

Friday, June 17, 2016

1. Closing Plenary (8:30 a.m.)
    a. Sub-Groups' reports
    b. Decision to approve SG6 MASPS for FRAC release
    c. Future meetings plans and dates
    d. Industry coordination
    i. WG-76 Briefing
    e. SC-206 action item review
    f. Other business
2. Adjourn (11:00 a.m.)

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. If planning to attend in person, please provide the
following information as soon as possible: Name, organization, position
title, phone number, supervisor name, supervisor contact information,
and dates of attendance. With the approval of the chairman, members of
the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary
information will be provided upon request. Persons who wish to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-12126 Filed 5-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 18)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5103]
[DOCID:fr29ja09-2]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM08-2-000; Order No. 720]

Pipeline Posting Requirements Under Section 23 of the Natural Gas
Act

January 15, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule: Order Granting Extension of Time.

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

SUMMARY: On November 20, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
issued a Final Rule in Order No. 720 which amended part 284 of its
regulations to require, in relevant part, major non-interstate natural
gas pipelines to post, on a daily basis, certain information regarding
scheduled volumes in natural gas to be transported. The date for major
non-interstate pipelines to comply with the requirements of Order No.
720 is being extended at the request of the American Gas Association.

DATES: Compliance date: The date for major non-interstate pipelines to
comply with Order No. 720, published in the Federal Register on
December 2, 2008 (73 FR 73494) is extended to 150 days following the
issuance of a Commission order on rehearing of Order No. 720.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Ellsworth (Technical), Office of Enforcement, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Gabriel Sterling (Legal), Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-8891.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.
    In the matter of: Docket No. RM08-2-000, Pipeline Posting
Requirements under Section 23 of the Natural Gas Act.

Order Granting Extension of Time

Issued January 15, 2009

    1. On November 20, 2008, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a Final Rule in Order No. 720,\1\ which amended
Part 284 of its regulations to require, in relevant part, major non-
interstate natural gas pipelines to post, on a daily basis, certain
information regarding scheduled volumes of natural gas to be
transported. Major non-interstate pipelines were required to comply
with Order No. 720 within 150 days following publication of the order
in the Federal Register.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Pipeline Posting Requirements under Section 23 of the
Natural Gas Act, Order No. 720, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,283 (2008).
    \2\ Id. P 168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. On December 11, 2008, the American Gas Association (AGA) filed a
Motion for an Extension of Time to Comply with Order No. 720. AGA
further requested expedited treatment of its motion. Answers in support
of the motion were subsequently filed by the Texas Pipeline Association
(TPA), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), and Shell Offshore Inc.
(Shell). These parties seek an extension of time for major non-
interstate pipelines to comply with the requirements of Order No. 720.
    3. The Commission grants an extension of time as requested in the
motion and supported in the answers. In particular, we find the answers
submitted by commenters to be persuasive. The commenters argue that
some major non-interstate pipelines will need additional time in which
to determine which receipt and delivery points are subject to the
posting requirements, obtain corporate approval for expenditures needed
for compliance, and develop Internet posting systems. Additionally, we
agree that some compliance activities may be premature prior to the
issuance of an order on rehearing of Order No. 720.
    4. Therefore, we grant an extension of time for major non-
interstate pipelines to comply with the requirements of Order No. 720
until 150 days following the issuance of an order addressing the
pending requests for rehearing. We do not modify the deadline by which
interstate pipelines must comply with the requirements of Order No.
720. Interstate pipelines must begin posting relevant information
regarding no-notice service within 60 days following the publication of
Order No. 720 in the Federal Register.
    The Commission orders:
    Major non-interstate pipelines must comply with the requirements of
Order No. 720 within 150 days following the issuance of an order on
rehearing in this proceeding.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-1468 Filed 1-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P