[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1136-1141]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33303]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773; FRL-9941-07-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the North Reading Area for the 2008
Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania). This
revision pertains to the Commonwealth's attainment plan for the North
Reading nonattainment area (``North Reading Area'' or ``Area'') for the
2008 lead national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and includes
a base year emissions inventory, an analysis of reasonably available
control measures (RACM) (including reasonably available control
technology (RACT)), a plan for reasonable further progress (RFP), a
modeling demonstration of lead NAAQS attainment, and contingency
measures. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 10,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2015-0773 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0773. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI, or otherwise protected, through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available in www.regulations.gov or may be viewed during
normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 12, 2015, the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a revision to
its SIP for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2008 lead
NAAQS in the North Reading Area. Pennsylvania's lead attainment plan
for the Area includes a base year emissions inventory, a modeling
demonstration of lead NAAQS attainment, an analysis of RACM, RACT, and
RFP, and contingency measures. The attainment plan includes portions of
two Consent Order and Agreements (COA) between PADEP and Exide
Technologies (Exide) and Yuasa Battery, Inc. (Yuasa) which demonstrate
how Pennsylvania will achieve and maintain compliance with the 2008
lead NAAQS. The lead attainment plan specifically includes paragraph 3
of the COA between Exide and PADEP, dated June 15, 2015, and paragraphs
5 and 22 of the COA between Yuasa and PADEP, dated June 12, 2015.
    EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's attainment plan for the 2008
lead NAAQS for the North Reading Area meets the applicable requirements
of the CAA. Thus, EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's attainment
plan for the North Reading Area and paragraphs 3, 5, and 22,
respectively, of the COAs between PADEP and Exide and Yuasa, as
submitted on August 12, 2015.
    EPA's analysis and findings are discussed for each applicable
requirement in this rulemaking action. The three Technical Support
Documents (TSDs) for this proposed action contain additional details on
the base year inventory, modeling, control strategies, RFP, and
contingency measures of the attainment demonstration. Copies of these
TSDs can be found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-
2015-0773) at www.regulations.gov.

I. Background

    The North Reading attainment plan assesses lead emissions within
the Area. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment and
present in some manufactured products. Human exposure to lead can cause
a variety of adverse health effects, especially in children.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A more detailed analysis of adverse health effects
associated with lead exposure can be found in the Preamble of the
2008 lead NAAQS final rule, published in the Federal Register on
November 12, 2008. See 73 FR 66964.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lead is emitted into the air from many sources, encompassing a wide
variety of stationary and mobile source types. In the United States,
there has been a decrease in the emissions of lead from mobile sources,
resulting from the reduction of lead additives to fuel. Most of the
lead emissions in the North Reading Area come from permitted stationary
sources within the Area.
    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA established a 2008 primary
and secondary lead NAAQS at 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/
m\3\)

based on a maximum arithmetic 3-month mean concentration for a 3-year
period. See 40 CFR 50.16. Following promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA, as described in section 107(d)(1),
to designate areas throughout the United States as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On November 22, 2010 (75 FR 71033), EPA published
its initial air quality designations and classifications for the 2008
lead NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for calendar years
2007-2009. The November 22, 2010 notice included the nonattainment
designation of the North Reading Area; an area within Berks County in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, bounded by Alsace Township,
Laureldale Borough, and Muhlenberg Township. See 76 FR 72097. The
November 22, 2010 designations, including the North Reading Area
nonattainment designation, became effective on December 31, 2010.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA completed a second and final round of designations for
the 2008 lead NAAQS on November 22, 2011. See 76 FR 72097. No
additional areas in Pennsylvania were designated as nonattainment
for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the November 22, 2011 designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The designation of the North Reading Area as nonattainment for the
2008 lead NAAQS triggered requirements under section 191(a) of the CAA,
requiring Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with a plan for how the
Area will attain the 2008 lead NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable,
but no later than December 31, 2015.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On August 12, 2015, in accordance with section 172(c) of the CAA,
Pennsylvania submitted an attainment plan for the North Reading Area
which includes a base year emissions inventory, an attainment
demonstration, an analysis of RACM and RACT, provisions for RFP, and
contingency measures. The SIP revision also includes paragraph 3 of the
COA between Exide and PADEP and paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA between
Yuasa and PADEP. EPA's analysis of the submitted attainment plan
includes a review of these elements for the North Reading Area.
    As part of the promulgation of the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA revised the
air monitoring requirements for lead. In accordance with the revised
monitoring requirements, air monitors near sources in Pennsylvania that
emit one ton per year (tpy) or more were in place by January 2010. The
monitoring requirements for lead were further revised on December 27,
2010, when EPA lowered the monitoring requirement for stationary
sources down to those that emit 0.5 tpy of lead among other changes.
See 75 FR 81126.
    Pennsylvania's lead monitoring network consists of lead monitors
that have been designated by EPA as either Reference or Equivalent
monitors and are subject to the federal quality assurance requirements
of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. All samplers are located at sites that
have met the minimum siting requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendices
D and E.
    PADEP currently operates two ambient air monitors in the North
Reading Area. The Laureldale South monitor has been in place since 1976
and the Laureldale North monitor since January 1, 2010.\3\ As required
in 40 CFR 58.10, Pennsylvania must provide EPA with an annual network
design plan in order to inform both EPA and the public of any planned
changes to the sampling network for the next year. EPA approved
Pennsylvania's 2015 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Design Plan,
the most recent year available at the time of this evaluation, on
November 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Laureldale North monitor (AQS 42-011-0020) is associated
with the Exide facility located in Berks County and was installed in
accordance with EPA's network design requirements for the 2008 lead
NAAQS. 73 FR 66964. EPA reaffirmed placement of lead ambient air
monitors in Pennsylvania when approving Pennsylvania's lead
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 NAAQS as meeting requirements in
section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. See 79 FR 19009 (April 7,
2014). EPA's approval of the lead infrastructure SIP, particularly
regarding the approval of Pennsylvania's monitoring locations for
section 110(a)(2)(B), was upheld in 2015 by the United States Court
of Appeal for the Third Circuit. Berks County v. EPA, 3rd Cir. No.
14-2913, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14050 (August 11, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Emissions Inventory Requirements

    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a state to submit a SIP that
includes a ``comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources of the relevant pollutant'' in the
nonattainment area. In the 2008 lead NAAQS rulemaking on November 12,
2008, EPA finalized guidance related to the emissions inventories
requirements for lead. See 73 FR 66964.
    For the base year inventory of actual lead emissions for CAA
172(c)(3), EPA recommends using either 2010 or 2011 as the base year,
but does provide flexibility for using other inventory years if states
can show another year is more appropriate. Additionally, EPA guidance
provides that actual emissions should be used for purposes of the base
year inventory.\4\ PADEP submitted a 2010 inventory for the point
sources of lead emissions in the North Reading Area, which includes
Exide and Yuasa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See ``Addendum to the 2008 Lead NAAQS Implementation
Questions and Answers'' dated August 10, 2012, which is included in
EPA's SIP Toolkit located at www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/implement.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the nonpoint sources of lead emissions, PADEP submitted EPA's
2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) v2 data as a surrogate for the
2010 inventory. The nonpoint source values for the North Reading Area
were calculated using Berks County data apportioned by population.
    EPA reviewed the results, procedures, and methodologies for
Pennsylvania's submission and found them to be reasonable for
calculating the lead base year inventory for section 172(c)(3) of the
CAA and in accordance with 40 CFR 51.117(e). A more detailed
description of the PADEP's use and calculation of inventories as well
as EPA's analysis of PADEP's base inventory for CAA requirements is
included in the TSD prepared in support of this proposed rulemaking
action. A copy of the Base Inventory TSD can be found in the docket for
this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at www.regulations.gov. In
this action, EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions
inventory submitted by Pennsylvania on August 12, 2015, as it meets
requirements in section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.

2. Attainment Planning Modeling

    Section 172(c)(4) of the CAA and the lead SIP regulations found at
40 CFR 51.117 require states to employ atmospheric dispersion modeling
for the demonstration of attainment of the lead NAAQS for areas in the
vicinity of point sources listed in 40 CFR 51.117(a)(1), as
expeditiously as practicable. The demonstration must meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.112 and part 51, appendix W, and include
inventory data, modeling results, and emissions reduction analyses on
which the state has based its projected attainment. All these
requirements comprise the ``attainment plan'' that is required for lead
nonattainment areas.
    As part of a state's attainment plan, 40 CFR 51.117(a) provides
that states must include an analysis showing that the SIP will attain
and maintain the standard in areas in the vicinity of certain point
sources that are emitting significant emissions of lead and also in
``[a]ny other area that has lead air concentrations in excess of the
national ambient air quality standard concentration.'' These sources
include primary and secondary lead smelters, primary copper smelters,
lead gasoline additive plants, lead-acid storage battery

manufacturing plants, and any other stationary source that emits 25 or
more tpy of lead or lead compounds measured as elemental lead. 40 CFR
51.117(a)(1). In doing this analysis, EPA expects a state will take
into consideration all sources of lead emissions within the
nonattainment area that may be required to be controlled.
    In its SIP submittal, Pennsylvania identified one facility as
having the potential to emit 0.5 tpy or more of lead in the North
Reading Area. This facility, Exide Technologies, a secondary lead
smelter, was included in PADEP's modeling analysis. Yuasa, a lead-acid
battery assembly plant located across the street from Exide, was also
included in the modeling analysis. Lead emissions from nonpoint sources
and mobile sources were also examined but found to be insignificant and
while included in PADEP's lead inventory, they were not included in the
lead modeling demonstration due to their insignificance.
    In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, PADEP completed an
air-dispersion modeling analysis for base year and future year emission
inventories representing Exide and Yuasa, with reported lead emissions
in 2010 and projected emissions for 2015. The 2015 lead emissions were
used in the modeled attainment demonstration to determine if projected
lead emission rates would comply with the 2008 lead NAAQS. The 2015
lead emissions for Exide and Yuasa were determined by incorporating
emission reductions from the implementation of the control measures set
forth in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Secondary Lead Smelting sources (Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP)
and from the stack-specific emission limits identified in the COAs
between Pennsylvania and Exide and Yuasa.\5\ PADEP modeled seventy-
seven lead emission sources for Exide and twenty-seven lead emission
sources for Yuasa. Table 1 summarizes 2010 and 2015 lead emissions
compiled by the Commonwealth for both Exide and Yuasa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ PADEP's RACM/RACT proposal for Exide, which includes
measures that would require the facility to meet the requirements of
the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP, is contained within Exide's Plan
Approval No. 06-05066I.

       Table 1--North Reading Lead Source Emissions Summary (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 2010 lead    2015 lead
                  Lead source                    emissions    emissions
                                                  (actual)   (projected)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exide.........................................       1.0417       0.8991
Yuasa.........................................       0.1520       0.0850
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has found that PADEP's modeling demonstration was done in
accordance with appendix W of 40 CFR part 51 and the modeling indicates
that the Area will meet the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    Because the Area had monitored violations of the 2008 lead NAAQS in
January 2013, before Exide began idling, the Area will not attain the
NAAQS by December 2015 (the Area's attainment date pursuant to section
192 of the CAA) based on ambient air quality over 36 consecutive 3-
month periods. However, there have been no monthly periods which have
exceeded 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ since March 2013.6 7 As such,
the 3-month rolling averages from mid-year 2013 and after have been
below 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ and the Area is on track to meet the 2008 lead
NAAQS. EPA and PADEP expect the 2008 lead NAAQS to be attained on the
basis of 2014-2016 ambient data as a result of implementation of
PADEP's August 12, 2015 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The daily averages used to calculate 3-month averages are
given in appendices A-2 and A-3 in PADEP's August 12, 2015
submittal, which can be found in docket for this rulemaking action.
    \7\ Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality System Data
Mart [internet database] available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/aqsdatamart. Accessed December 3, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projected 2015 emissions inventory used the maximum allowable
lead emissions for both Exide and Yuasa. While Exide is currently
idling, it has not installed all of the control measures necessary for
the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP and its Plan Approval No. 06-05066I.
However, pursuant to the COA between Exide and Pennsylvania, Exide
cannot resume operations at the facility without demonstrating
compliance with the control measures specified in the Plan Approval No.
06-05066I and in its COA. The future year maximum allowable lead
emissions were developed from the control measures included in
Pennsylvania's attainment plan. However, even if Exide's operations
remain idled and controls not installed until it resumes operations,
its potential lead emissions while idling will continue to be less than
if it were operating under the NESHAP and COA controls and limits.
    EPA has evaluated the information provided in the Commonwealth's
attainment plan for the North Reading Area and concludes that the
Commonwealth's model attainment demonstration shows current lead
control and emission limits will provide for attainment of the 2008
lead NAAQS and the modeling meets the requirements in the CAA and its
implementing regulations.
    More detailed information on the modeling system tools and
documents used for the model attainment demonstration for the Area and
EPA's analysis of PADEP's modeling can be found on the EPA Technology
Transfer Network Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling
(SCRAM), in Pennsylvania's August 12, 2015 submittal, and in the EPA's
Modeling TSD which can be found in the docket for this proposed action
(EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at www.regulations.gov.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. RACM, RACT, and RFP Analysis

    According to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.112,
Demonstration of Adequacy, attainment plans shall provide for RACM and
RACT and must demonstrate that the measures, rules, and regulations
contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely attainment and
maintenance of the national standard that it implements.
    In order to bring the North Reading Area into attainment for the
2008 lead NAAQS, Pennsylvania developed and modeled a control strategy
for emissions from stacks at stationary sources and fugitive emissions
from stationary sources from the two point sources of lead in the
nonattainment area. Section IV of Pennsylvania's attainment plan SIP
revision details the control measures and emission limits for the North
Reading Area.
    Pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the CAA, attainment plans must
provide for the implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as
practicable for each nonattainment area. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA
requires RACM and emission reductions from sources through RACT to
provide for attainment of the NAAQS. In March 2012, EPA issued guidance
titled, ``Guide to Developing Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) for Controlling Lead Emissions'' (RACM Guidance).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/lead/pdfs/2012ImplementationGuide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final rule for the 2008 lead NAAQS, EPA recommended that at
least all stationary sources emitting 0.5 tpy or

more should undergo a RACT review.\10\ At the time Pennsylvania was
developing its attainment plan SIP, Exide was the only stationary
source within the North Reading Area that had the potential to emit 0.5
tpy or more of lead emissions. Therefore, Exide was the only point
source within the North Reading Area which PADEP required to complete a
RACT analysis. Exide performed a RACT analysis following EPA's RACM
guidance for controlling lead emissions which PADEP adopted in Plan
Approval No. 06 05066I and proposes as RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exide's RACT analysis is located in appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's
SIP revision. The control measures the PADEP implemented as RACT for
Exide include a variety of control measures for the attainment plan
which also address requirements in the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP.
See 77 FR 556 (January 5, 2012).
    A descriptive list of the measures which Exide must implement are
included in table 9 of PADEP's SIP revision. EPA's review and analysis
of Pennsylvania's RACT proposal for Exide can be found in the Control
Strategies, Reasonable Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD
found in the docket for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at
www.regulations.gov.
    EPA is proposing to approve Pennsylvania's determination that the
controls for lead emissions at Exide constitute RACM/RACT because PADEP
conducted a reasonable analysis of controls that are technically and
economically feasible and set the lowest achievable limits given those
controls in accordance with the CAA requirements. By approving these
control measures as RACM/RACT for Exide for purposes of the North
Reading attainment plan, these control measures will become permanent
and federally enforceable and will meet the requirements of the CAA and
the 2008 lead NAAQS.
    In addition to the RACT analysis performed for Exide, Pennsylvania
evaluated other sources and actions that could contribute meaningful
emission reductions for RACM. In order to establish further enforceable
controls as RACM to reduce lead emissions from lead point sources and
fugitive lead sources, the Commonwealth developed and entered into two
separate COAs, one COA with Exide and one COA with Yuasa. These COAs
are located within the Pennsylvania attainment SIP revision in
appendices C-1 and C-2 and, upon EPA approval of Pennsylvania's
submittal, the portions of these COAs submitted for the SIP will become
federally enforceable.
    According to PADEP, the COA between Exide and Pennsylvania
specifies control measures that have been demonstrated with air
dispersion modeling to reduce Exide's lead emission contributions to
the North Reading Area. Also in the COA are emission limits that are to
be included in the Commonwealth's SIP as limiting factors for lead
emissions control from the lead emitting stacks at the Exide facility.
The COA limits the total stack lead emissions for Exide to 0.02479667
grams of lead per second (g/s).
    However, Exide has been in an idling state since February 2013, and
as a result its lead emissions have been reduced dramatically. Exide
submitted to PADEP a deactivation cover letter and Maintenance and
Activation Plan on January 31, 2014, which indicated that only two
lead-emitting sources remain active during the facility's idling state.
Source 131 Lime Storage Bin and Source 132 Plant Roadways continue to
operate under the controls currently identified in the facility's Title
V operating permit. In 2014, under this idled state, Exide emitted a
total of 0.00004 tpy of lead, reflecting significant reductions from
its prior lead emissions due to idling.
    Included in the COA between Pennsylvania and Exide is the
requirement that Exide shall not resume operation of any portion of the
facility until Exide has completed all of the modification work
specified in Exide's Plan Approval No. 06-05066I, which includes all
requirements for the Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP.
    According to PADEP's attainment plan, the COA between Yuasa and
Pennsylvania specifies control measures that have been demonstrated
with air dispersion modeling to reduce Yuasa's contribution to lead
emissions in the North Reading Area. The COA with Yuasa includes
emission limits as well as requirements for stack testing,
recordkeeping, monitoring, and progress reports. The COA limits the
total stack lead emissions for Yuasa to 0.002279522 g/s, to which Yuasa
must adhere by December 31, 2015. Yuasa must demonstrate compliance
with these limits, via reference method stack testing, by no later than
June 30, 2016.
    Upon EPA final approval of the Pennsylvania lead attainment plan
SIP revision for the North Reading Area, the limits and measures (in
paragraph 3 for Exide and paragraphs 5 and 22 for Yuasa) within the
COAs for Exide and Yuasa will become federally enforceable. EPA finds
the measures contained in the COAs for Yuasa and Exide provide for
implementation of all RACM as expeditiously as practicable to provide
for attainment of the 2008 lead NAAQS in accordance with the
requirements in section 172(c)(1) of the CAA and its implementing
regulations. Further details of EPA's review of the RACM for Yuasa and
Exide is provided in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further
Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD found in the docket for this
proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at www.regulations.gov.
    In accordance with section 172(c)(2) of the CAA, attainment plans
must also provide for RFP. Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutants as required by Title I, Part D of the CAA, or emission
reductions that may reasonably be required by EPA to ensure attainment
of the applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.\11\ EPA believes that
RFP for lead nonattainment areas should be met by ``adherence to an
ambitious compliance schedule'' which is expected to periodically yield
significant emission reductions, and as appropriate, linear
progress.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Incremental reductions in lead emissions are not specified
in Part D.
    \12\ See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its August 12, 2015 submittal, PADEP presented the COAs with
Exide and Yuasa as providing for RFP. Overall, EPA finds that the
control strategies for both Exide and Yuasa will provide for immediate
reductions in lead emissions in the Area. Yuasa's reductions will be
implemented by December 2015. Although Exide's reductions in lead from
the control strategies in the COA have not been implemented yet, the
plant has no lead smelting in operation and thus reductions in lead
have already occurred. While the lead emissions reductions are not
staggered or phased and therefore the ambient air quality
concentrations are not expected to decrease over a long period of time,
the lead reductions have already most notably occurred after Exide
began its idling state in February 2013. Since shortly after Exide
began idling, all of the North Reading Area's ambient air monitors have
been reporting 3-month rolling averages well below the 2008 lead NAAQS.
As ambient air quality concentrations have dropped, and have remained,
below 0.15 [micro]g/m \3\, EPA believes that the Area has made RFP
towards attainment.
    As provided in the COA between Exide and PADEP, if Exide seeks to
resume its lead smelting operations at its facility, Exide would first
need to

comply with all of the control measures necessary to comply with the
Secondary Lead Smelting NESHAP as well as the control measures
specified in the COA. Upon implementation of these control strategies,
Pennsylvania's modeling shows the ambient air quality concentrations
should continue below the attainment level. Therefore, the Area should
continue to attain the 2008 lead NAAQS whether Exide is operating or
not and EPA thus finds that PADEP has met its RFP requirements for the
North Reading Area.
    In summary, EPA finds the Pennsylvania attainment plan for North
Reading Area meets CAA requirements in section 172 of the CAA for RACM/
RACT and RFP. Further EPA analysis and reasoning supporting EPA's
conclusion is available in the Control Strategies, Reasonable Further
Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD found in the docket for this
proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at www.regulations.gov.

4. Contingency Measures

    As required by section 172(c)(9) of the CAA, an attainment
demonstration must include contingency measures to be implemented if
EPA determines that the nonattainment area in question has failed to
make RFP or if the area fails to attain the NAAQS by the attainment
date in December 2015. These measures must be fully adopted rules or
control measures that can be implemented quickly and without additional
EPA or state action if the area fails to meet RFP requirements or fails
to meet it attainment date. Contingency measures should contain trigger
mechanisms and an implementation schedule. In addition, these measures
should not already be included in the SIP control strategy for
attaining the standard.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 73 FR 67038 (November 12, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the North Reading Area attainment plan, Pennsylvania's SIP
submission provides that if the air quality data for any 3-month
rolling period after the implementation of the control measures
identified in the COAs and Plan Approval No. 06-05066I exceed the 0.15
[micro]g/m\3\ lead NAAQS, at least one of the contingency measures set
forth in the COAs shall be implemented.
    The COA between Pennsylvania and Exide includes for contingency
measures: Upgrade of existing fugitive dust control devices; increase
existing lead emission stack heights; increased frequency of plant
roadway surface cleaning; and an investigative study.\14\ PADEP will
use two types of triggers, ambient air quality and emission events, for
the implementation of contingency measures in the North Reading Area.
Detailed information regarding the contingency measure actions and
contingency measure triggers for Exide and Yuasa as well as EPA's
analysis of these contingency measures for compliance with CAA
requirements, can be found in the Control Strategies, Reasonable
Further Progress, and Contingency Measures TSD located in the docket
for this proposed action (EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0773) at
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The COA between Pennsylvania and Yuasa includes an
investigative study as a contingency measure for Yuasa. Appendix C-2
in PADEP's August 12, 2015 submittal, which can be found in docket
for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finds these contingency measure triggers and actions will help
ensure compliance with the 2008 lead NAAQS and meet the requirements of
section 172(c)(9) of the CAA to ensure continued attainment of the
NAAQS if any events occur interfering with attainment. EPA proposes to
approve Pennsylvania's SIP revision as meeting section 172(c)(9) of the
CAA.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of Pennsylvania's August 12, 2015 SIP revision for the
attainment plan for the North Reading Area satisfies the applicable
requirements of the CAA identified in EPA's final 2008 lead NAAQS rule
and in section 172 of the CAA and its implementation regulations.\15\
EPA finds the attainment plan will result in attainment of the 0.15
[micro]g/m\3\ standard for the 2008 lead NAAQS in the North Reading
Area. EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision, which
was submitted on August 12, 2015, for the North Reading nonattainment
area for the 2008 lead NAAQS and includes the attainment demonstration,
base year emissions inventory, RACM/RACT and RFP analyses, and
contingency measures. EPA also proposes to approve for inclusion in the
Pennsylvania SIP paragraph 3 of the COA between Exide and PADEP, dated
June 15, 2015 and paragraphs 5 and 22 of the COA, dated June 12, 2012,
between Yuasa and PADEP, as control measures for the attainment plan.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires permits for the
construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in a nonattainment area. The Pennsylvania SIP
includes provisions consistent with the federal requirements, set
forth at 40 CFR 51.165, for nonattainment new source review (NSR).
Yuasa is considered a natural minor for purposes of nonattainment
NSR for all pollutants, including lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Lead.

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

    Dated: December 21, 2015.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2015-33303 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61308-61309]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22030]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD22-10-000]

Reliability Technical Conference; Supplemental Notice of
Technical Conference

    As announced in the Notice of Technical Conference issued in this
proceeding on August 23, 2022, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will convene its annual Commissioner-led Reliability
Technical Conference in the above-referenced proceeding on Thursday,
November 10, 2022, from approximately 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time. The conference will be held in-person at the Commission's
headquarters at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 in the
Commission Meeting Room.
    The purpose of this conference is to discuss policy issues related
to the reliability and security of the Bulk-Power System.
    The conference will be open for the public to attend, and there is
no fee for attendance. Supplemental notices will be issued prior to the
conference with further details regarding the agenda, how to register
to participate, and the format. Information on this technical
conference will also be posted on the Calendar of Events on the
Commission's website, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The conference
will also be transcribed. Transcripts will be available for a fee from
Ace Reporting,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Those who wish to nominate their names for consideration as a panel
participant should submit their name, title, company (or organization
they are representing), telephone, email, a one-paragraph biography,
picture, and topic they wish to address to:
[email protected] by close of business on October
14, 2022.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to [email protected], call toll-free<PHONE_NUMBER>
(voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a fax to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this technical conference, please
contact Lodie White at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
information related to logistics, please contact Sarah

McKinley at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22030 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16227-16228]
[DOCID:fr31mr10-157]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0037]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before seeking OMB approval,
Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of
information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously
approved collections.
    This document describes an Information Collection Request (ICR) for
which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation Dockets, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC
20590. Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0037.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph Atkins, Ph.D., Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety
Research (NTI-131), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., W46-500, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Atkins'
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and his e-mail address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: Motivations for Speeding.
    Type of Request: New information collection request--focus group
follow-up with participants from an earlier on-road instrumented
vehicle study.
    OMB Clearance Number: N/A.
    Form Number: This collection of information uses no standard forms.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: September 3, 2011.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: In Phase 1 of this study,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted
on-road instrumented vehicle data collection in Seattle, WA and College
Station, TX with a total of 167 participants to examine driving speed
patterns with the goals of understanding motivations for speeding.
Based on speeding patterns in the data from the instrumented vehicle
phase of this study, NHTSA plans to follow-up with these same subjects
in focus groups in Phase 2 of the research to develop a better
understanding of speeding and speeders, to develop a more accurate
taxonomy of high/low speed driver subgroups and to gain a better
understanding of the motives--as well as attitudes and habits--of these
subgroups, and explore attitudes and behavioral influences pertinent to
various countermeasures (e.g., points reduction courses, speed
awareness courses, engineering countermeasures, and automated
enforcement) and the acceptance and potential effectiveness of the
countermeasures. The focus groups will include: general discussions of
speed choices and speeding behaviors and the factors that influence
them, discussions of beliefs and attitudes toward speeding, reactions
to and discussions about specific driving scenarios, and individual/
group responses to various speeding countermeasures. The focus groups
are expected to provide data relevant to descriptions of key
motivations, attitudes, normative commitment to law, driving habits
relevant to speeding and speeding countermeasures; descriptions of
countermeasures with the greatest likely benefits; implementation
issues and concerns associated with the countermeasures; and key
advantages and disadvantages associated with various countermeasures.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
was established by the Highway Safety Act of l970 (23 U.S.C. 101) to
carry out a Congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number of
deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle
crashes on the Nation's highways. Speeding is one of the primary
factors leading to vehicle crashes. In 2008, 31% of all fatal crashes
were speeding-related. The estimated economic cost to society for
speeding-related crashes is $40.4 billion per year. Driving at higher
speeds reduces the ability of drivers to avoid obstacles or react to
sudden changes in the roadway environment and increases crash severity.
The pervasiveness of speeding behavior is reflected in a recent
national survey that showed that approximately 75% of all drivers
reported speeding in the past month. Since most drivers often do not
see speeding as risky or dangerous behavior, it is imperative that
NHTSA gain a better understanding of the motivations for speeding
behaviors in order to develop and refine effective interventions and
countermeasures. These focus groups, directly linked to the driving
speed patterns of drivers in Phase 1 of the study, will provide
important new information on the reasons drivers choose to drive at
certain speeds and what

countermeasures would be most effective in reducing their speeding
behaviors. In support of its mission, NHTSA will use the findings from
these focus group sessions to improve current programs, interventions
and countermeasures for speeding on our Nation's highways in order to
achieve the greatest benefit in decreasing crashes and resulting
injuries and fatalities, and provide informational support to States,
localities, and law enforcement agencies that will aid them in their
efforts to reduce traffic crashes.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--A
subset of the participants who participated in the Phase 1 on-road
study will be asked to participate in focus groups. Individual focus
group sessions will be based on specific demographic or behavioral
characteristics of the Phase 1 participants, with the constraint that
the group composition should not be counterproductive to facilitating
frank and open discussions of the key topics (i.e., combining young
males and females in the same group is not an effective approach). The
selection strategy will involve three focus groups at each location,
(1) younger male chronic speeders, (2) younger female chronic speeders,
and (3) older male and female situational and chronic speeders. These
focus groups are expected to take place in the July/August 2010
timeframe. Session participation would be voluntary and compensated
with a $75 honorarium.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--NHTSA will conduct six
focus group sessions, three in Seattle, WA and three in College Station
TX. Each focus group will consist of 8-12 participants and last
approximately 80 minutes. Participants will be recruited by e-mail or
telephone based on their driving behaviors in Phase 1 of the study and
their demographic characteristics. Therefore, the total estimated
annual burden is between 64 and 96 hours, depending on the number of
participants (range 8--12) in each group. The respondents would not
incur any reporting cost from the information collection. The
respondents also would not incur any record keeping burden or record
keeping cost from the information collection.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued on: March 25, 2010.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-7130 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17211-17212]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2011-0786]

Deadline for Notification of Intent To Use the Airport
Improvement Program's (AIP) Primary, Cargo, and Nonprimary Entitlement
Funds Available for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA announces May 15, 2018, as the deadline for each
airport sponsor to notify the FAA whether or not it will use its FY
2018 entitlement funds (also referred to as apportioned funds)
available under 49 U.S.C. 47114 to support AIP-eligible projects that
the airport sponsor previously identified through the Airports Capital
Improvement Plan process during the preceding year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elliott Black, Director, Office of
Airport Planning and Programming, APP-1, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 49 U.S.C. 47105(f) provides that the
sponsor of each airport to which entitlement funds are apportioned
shall notify the Secretary by such time and in a form as prescribed by
the Secretary of the airport sponsor's intent to apply for its
available entitlement funds. Therefore, the FAA is hereby notifying
airport sponsors of the steps required to ensure that the FAA has
sufficient time to carry-over and convert remaining entitlement funds.
This notice applies only to those airports that have had entitlement
funds apportioned to them, except those nonprimary airports located in
designated block grant states. Airport sponsors intending to apply for
any of their available entitlement funds, including those unused from
prior years, shall make their intent known by 12 p.m. prevailing local
time on Tuesday, May 15, 2018. This notice must address all entitlement
funds available for FY 2018, including those entitlement funds not
obligated from prior years. These notifications are critical to ensure
efficient planning and administration of the AIP. The final grant
application deadline is Tuesday, July 10, 2018. All notifications and
grant applications must be provided to the designated FAA Airports
District Office (or regional office in regions without Airports
District Offices).
    The airport sponsor's notification must address all entitlement
funds

available for FY 2018, as well as any entitlement funds not obligated
from prior years. After Tuesday, July 10, 2018, the FAA will carry over
any currently available entitlement funds for which the airport sponsor
has not notified the FAA of its intention to use and these funds will
not be available again until at least the beginning of FY 2019. This
notification requirement does not apply to nonprimary airports covered
by the State Block Grant Program.
    Historically this deadline has been May 1 of each year. Due to the
timing of the FY 2018 appropriation and extension of authorizing
legislation, the FAA is extending the normal deadline. However, the FAA
encourages airport sponsors to communicate with the FAA as soon as
possible. Regional offices may establish earlier deadlines due to
constraints on construction seasons.
    Absent notification of the intent to use entitlement funds or
submission of a grant application by the relevant deadlines noted
above, the FAA will proceed after Tuesday, July 10, 2018, to carry over
the remainder of available entitlement funds. These funds will not be
available again until at least the beginning of FY 2019. This notice is
promulgated to expedite and facilitate the grant-making process.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 6, 2018.
Elliott Black,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2018-07658 Filed 4-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50483-50484]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[OST Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0022]

Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB
Agency Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Collection: On-Line
Complaint Form for Service-Related Issues in Air Transportation

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the Department of Transportation's intention to renew
an OMB control number for an on-line complaint form by which a consumer
can electronically submit a service-related complaint against an
airline and other travel-related companies.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by January 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the following means:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments;
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W-12/140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; or
     Hand delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W-12/140,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daeleen Chesley, Office of the
Secretary, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings (C-70), Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice) or at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0568.
    Title: Renewal of Aviation Consumer Protection Division Web page
On-Line Complaint Form.
    Abstract: The Department of Transportation's (Department) Office of
the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
(Enforcement Office) has broad authority under 49 U.S.C., Subtitle VII,
to investigate and enforce consumer protection and civil rights laws
and regulations related to air transportation. The Enforcement Office,
including its Aviation Consumer Protection Division (ACPD), monitors
compliance with and investigates violations of the Department of
Transportation's aviation economic, consumer protection, and civil
rights requirements.
    Among other things, the licensing office is responsible for
receiving and investigating service-related consumer complaints filed
against airlines and other travel-related companies. Once received, the
complaints are reviewed by the office to determine the extent to which
these entities are in compliance with federal aviation consumer
protection and civil rights laws and what, if any, action should be
taken.
    The key reason for this request is to enable consumers to continue
to file their complaints (or comments) to the Department using an on-
line form, whether via their personal computer or on a mobile/
electronic device. If the information collection form is not available,
the Department may receive fewer complaints from consumers. The lack of
consumer-driven information

could inhibit the office's ability to effectively investigate both
individual complaints against airlines and other air travel-related
companies. It would also impact the Department's Enforcement Office's
ability to become aware of patterns and practices that may develop in
violation of our rules. The information collection continues to further
the objectives of 49 U.S.C. 41712, 40101, 40127, 41702, and 41705 to
protect consumers from unfair or deceptive practices, to protect the
civil rights of air travelers, and to ensure safe and adequate service
in air transportation.
    Filing a complaint using a web-based form is voluntary and
minimizes the burden on respondents. Based on CY16 information, 17,162
of the 17,909 cases received by ACPD were filed using the web-based
form (95.8%). At times, consumers may also choose to file a complaint
with the Department using regular mail or by phone message. The type of
information requested on the form includes complainant's name, address,
phone number (including area code), email address, and name of the
airline or company about which she/he is complaining, as well as the
flight date and flight itinerary (where applicable) of a complainant's
trip. A consumer may also use the form to give a description of a
specific air-travel related problem or to ask for air-travel related
information from the ACPD. The Department has limited its informational
request to that necessary to meet its program and administrative
monitoring and enforcement activities.
    Respondents: Consumers that Choose to File an On-Line Complaint
with the Aviation Consumer Protection Division.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 17,162 (based on CY 2016 data).
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 4,290.5 hours, (257,430
minutes). The estimate was calculated by multiplying the number of
cases filed using the on-line form in CY16 (17,162) by the time needed
to fill out the on-line form (15 minutes).
    The information collection is available for inspection in
regulations.gov, as noted in the ADDRESSES section of his document.
    Comments are Invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of
the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.
    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the
request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of
public record on the docket.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 25, 2017.
Jonathan Dols,
Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings.
[FR Doc. 2017-23631 Filed 10-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


Amending 40 CFR Part 35 (Subpart O)

EPA’s Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for
Superfund Response Actions

Purpose	EPA is amending 40 CFR Part 35, (subpart O), “Cooperative
Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response
Actions.”  This fact sheet discusses proposed changes to subpart O,
which would reduce the burden for Indian Tribes to receive Superfund
cooperative agreements.

What is subpart O?	Subpart O prescribes the requirements for
administering cooperative agreements to States, Indian Tribes, and
political subdivisions to conduct remedial actions, non-time critical
removal actions, pre-remedial activities and other response actions
authorized by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as Superfund.  Subpart O
became effective in July 1990.  Subpart O also prescribes requirements
for Superfund state contracts.

EPA is making minor changes to subpart O to improve the administration
and effectiveness of cooperative agreements and Superfund state
contracts under CERCLA.

Key changes that affect Indian Tribes	There are three key changes that
EPA is proposing to make it easier for Indian Tribes and intertribal
consortia to receive cooperative agreements under subpart O.

Clarifying Eligibility of Intertribal Consortia	EPA is proposing that
the revised subpart O clarify that intertribal consortia are eligible to
receive Superfund cooperative agreements.  An intertribal consortium is
defined as a partnership between two or more Federally-recognized Indian
Tribes that is authorized by the governing bodies of those Indian Tribes
to apply for and receive assistance agreements. An intertribal
consortium must have adequate documentation of the existence of the
partnership, and the authorization to apply for and receive assistance.

An intertribal consortium would be eligible to receive a cooperative
agreement from EPA only if the intertribal consortium demonstrates that
all members of the consortium meet the eligibility requirements for the
cooperative agreement, and all members authorize the consortium to apply
for and receive assistance.

This change would implement the Federal Register notice, “Update to
EPA Policy on Certain Grants to Intertribal Consortia,” (see, 67 FR
67181 (November 4, 2002)).

Codifying a Class Deviation for  certain Superfund Cooperative
Agreements	Under the current subpart O regulation, the requirement at 40
CFR §35.6010, which references 40 CFR §300.515(b)(3) of the National
Contingency Plan, that Tribes must “have jurisdiction over a site at
which Fund-financed response, including pre-remedial activities, is
contemplated,” applies to all Superfund cooperative agreements.  EPA
is proposing that under the revised regulation at 40 CFR §35.6010, a
Tribe would not be required to demonstrate jurisdiction over a site in
order to be eligible for Core Program cooperative agreements and support
agency cooperative agreements that fund activities for which
jurisdiction over a site is not necessary.

Core Program cooperative agreements fund non-site specific activities
aimed at developing and implementing a tribal emergency and remedial
response program; they are not awarded for any particular site over
which the Tribe might be found to exercise jurisdiction.  Similarly,
jurisdiction over a Superfund site is not necessary for a Tribe to
perform virtually all support role activities eligible for funding under
a support agency cooperative agreement.  This action would codify the
Class Deviation for Indian Tribes Memorandum from Gary Katz, Director of
EPA Grants Administration Division, dated July 7, 1999.  As a practical
matter, this action would conserve scarce EPA and tribal resources and
reduce impediments to tribal involvement in the Superfund Program.  In
order to be eligible for other types of cooperative agreements under 40
CFR Part 35, subpart O, Tribes would still need to meet all of the
requirements set forth at §300.515(b).

Eliminating Tribal Cost Share Requirements	Under the current regulation,
Indian Tribes are required to provide a 10 percent cost share for Core
Program and support agency cooperative agreements.  EPA is proposing
that under the revised regulation, the cost share requirements would be
eliminated.  With this change, Indian Tribes would not have any cost
share requirements under subpart O.

Projected date to publish rule	The projected date to publish the amended
rule is Spring 2007.

Contact	If you would like to know more about the above changes, please
contact Angelo Carasea at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.  His e-mail
address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Dated:  June 12, 2006


[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 41794]
[DOCID:fr24jy06-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-380-001]

Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

July 14, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 7, 2006, Tuscarora Gas Transmission
Company (Tuscarora) tendered for filing as a part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, effective
June 1, 2006, pursuant to Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company, 116 FERC
] 61,003 (2006) (July 3 Order):

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 4.
Original Sheet No. 4A.
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 5.
Original Sheet No. 5A.
Third Revised Sheet No. 12.
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 22.

    Tuscarora states that copies of the filing were served on all
parties on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-11666 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40669-40670]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14571]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0313]

National Maritime Security Advisory Committee

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee (Committee)
will meet via teleconference, to review and discuss the Coast Guard's
efforts to develop the Maritime Cyber Risk Analysis Model and updates
to the Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 03-03. This
teleconference will be open to the public.

DATES:
    Meeting: The Committee will meet by teleconference on Wednesday,
July 29, 2020 from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. This teleconference may
close early if all business is finished.
    Comments and supporting documentation: To ensure your comments are
received by Committee members before the teleconference, submit your
written comments no later than July 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The teleconference will be broadcasted via a web enabled
interactive online format and teleconference line. To participate via
teleconference, dial 1-202-475-4000; the pass code to join is 812 197
73#. Additionally, if you would like to participate in this
teleconference via the online web format, please log onto https://share.dhs.gov/nmsac/ and follow the online instructions to register for
this meeting. If you encounter technical difficulties, contact Mr. Ryan
Owens at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For information on services for individuals with disabilities, or
to request special assistance, contact the individual listed in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below as soon as possible.
    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time,
including orally at the teleconference as time permits, but if you want
Committee members to review your comment before the teleconference,
please submit your comments no later than July 15, 2020. We are
particularly interested in comments on the issues in the ``Agenda''
section below. We encouraged you to submit comments through Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://regulations.gov. If your material cannot
be submitted using https://regulations.gov, call or email the
individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document for alternate instructions. You must include the docket number
[USCG-2020-0313]. Comments received will be posted without alteration
at https://www.regulations.gov including any personal information
provided. For more about privacy submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). If you encounter technical difficulties with comment
submission, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
    Docket Search: Documents mentioned in this notice as being
available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following
that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online
docket and sign-up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments
are posted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated
Federal Officer of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee,
2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20593, Stop 7581,
Washington, DC 20593-7581; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is in compliance with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U. S. C., Appendix 2). The
National Maritime Security Advisory Committee operates under Section
70112 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) (Pub.
L. 107-295, November 25, 2002, as codified in 46

U.S.C. Chapter 701, 46 U.S.C. 70101 et seq.). This Committee will
advise the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, via the
Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to national
maritime security, including on enhancing the sharing of information
related to cybersecurity risks that may cause a transportation security
incident, between relevant Federal agencies and State, local, and
tribal governments; relevant public safety and emergency response
agencies; relevant law enforcement and security organizations; maritime
industry; port owners and operators; and terminal owners and operators

Agenda

    (1) Call to Order.
    (2) Opening Remarks.
    (3) Maritime Cybersecurity Risk Analysis Model.
    The Coast Guard is working on the Maritime Cyber Risk Analysis
Model. As per the section 601 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2018 (CGAA18), Public Law 115-282, 132 Stat. 4192,
the Committee will be tasked with reviewing the work to date and
assisting the Coast Guard in further development of the model.
    (4) Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular Number 03-03, Change
3.
    The Coast Guard is in the process of updating to Navigation and
Vessel Inspection Circular Number 03-03, Change 2, Implementation
Guidance for the Regulations Mandated by the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002 (MTSA) for Facilities. Change 3 will provide
further clarity and guidance for the implementation of the maritime
security regulations mandated by the MTSA as amended by the CGAA18 and
the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (Pub. L.
109-347; 120 Stat. 1884).
    (5) Public comment period.
    (6) Closing Remarks.
    (7) Adjournment of meeting.
    A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/NMSAC by July 15, 2020. Alternatively, you may
contact Mr. Ryan Owens as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section
above.
    There will be a public comment period at the end of the meeting.
Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes and keep
their remarks to the topic of the Maritime Cyber Risk Analysis Model.
Please note that the public comment period may end before the period
allotted, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above to register
as a speaker.

    Dated: June 24, 2020.
Wayne Arguin,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-14571 Filed 7-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P