[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16170-16172]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC16-3-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities; (FERC-556, FERC-
606, and FERC-607); Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information
collections FERC-556 (Certification of Qualifying Facility Status for a
Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility), FERC-606
(Notification of Request for Federal Authorization and Requests for
Further Information), and FERC-607 (Report on Decision or Action on
Request for Federal Authorization) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (80
FR 74101, 11/27/2015) requesting public comments. The Commission
received no comments on the FERC-556, FERC-606, or FERC-607 and is
making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collections of information are due by April 25,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control Nos.
1902-0075 (FERC-556) and 1902-0241 (FERC-606 and FERC-607) should be
sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in
Docket No. IC16-3-000, by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection
requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the
current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is
distinct from the next.
    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the
burden and cost of the collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

FERC-556, Certification of Qualifying Facility Status for a Small Power
Production or Cogeneration Facility

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0075.
    Abstract: Form No. 556 is required to implement sections 201 and
210 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 \1\ (PURPA).
FERC is authorized, under those sections, to encourage cogeneration and
small power production and to prescribe such rules as necessary in
order to carry out the statutory directives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 796, 824a-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A primary statutory objective is efficient use of energy resources
and facilities by electric utilities. One means of achieving this goal
is to encourage production of electric power by cogeneration facilities
which make use of reject heat associated with commercial or industrial
processes, and by small power production facilities which use other
wastes and renewable resources. PURPA encourages the development of
small power production facilities and cogeneration facilities that meet
certain technical and corporate

criteria through establishment of various regulatory benefits.
Facilities that meet these criteria are called Qualifying Facilities
(QFs).
    FERC's regulations in 18 CFR part 292, as relevant here, specify:
(a) The certification procedures which must be followed by owners or
operators of small power production and cogeneration facilities; (b)
the criteria which must be met; (c) the information which must be
submitted to FERC in order to obtain qualifying status; and (d) the
PURPA benefits which are available to QFs to encourage small power
production and cogeneration.
    18 CFR part 292 also exempts QFs from certain corporate,
accounting, reporting, and rate regulation requirements of the Federal
Power Act,\2\ certain state laws and the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 2005.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 791, et seq.
    \3\ 42 U.S.C. 16, 451-63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Respondent: Facilities that are self-certifying their
status as a cogenerator or small power producer or that are submitting
an application for FERC certification of their status as a cogenerator
or small power producer.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:

                       FERC-556--Certification of Qualifying Facility Status for a Small Power Production or Cogeneration Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Annual  number
                                                   Number of    of  responses  Total number  Average  burden hours    Total annual  burden     Cost per
                                                  respondents        per             of           and cost  per         hours  and total      respondent
                                                                 respondent      responses        response \4\            annual cost            ($)
Facility type                  Filing type                (1)             (2)   (1) * (2) =  (4)..................  (3) * (4) = (5)........    (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cogeneration Facility >1 MW    Self-                       54            1.25          67.5  1.5 hrs; $108........  101.25 hrs; $7,290.....         $135
 \5\.                           certification.
Cogeneration Facility >1 MW..  Application for              1            1.25          1.25  50 hrs; $3,600.......  62.5 hrs; $4,500.......        4,500
                                FERC
                                certification.
Small Power Production         Self-                    1,787            1.25         2,234  1.5 hrs; $108........  3,351hrs; $241,272.....          135
 Facility >1 MW.                certification.
Small Power Production         Application for              0            1.25             0  50 hrs; $3,600.......  0 hrs; $0..............            0
 Facility >1 MW.                FERC
                                certification.
Cogeneration and Small Power   Self-                      312            1.25           390  1.5 hrs; $108 \7\....  585 hrs; $42,120.......          135
 Production Facility <=1 MW     certification.
 (Self-Certification) \6\.
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  ................         2,154  ..............         2,693  .....................  4,100 hrs; $295,182....  ...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FERC-606, Notification of Request for Federal Authorization and
Requests for Further Information; FERC-607, Report on Decision or
Action on Request for Federal Authorization
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The burden costs are based on an FERC's 2015 average annual
wage (and benefits) figure for a full-time employee of $149,489
($72/hour). The Commission staff believes that industry is similarly
situated in terms of staff costs and skill sets.
    \5\ MW = megawatt.
    \6\ Not required to file.
    \7\ The ``Cost per Response'' for the Cogeneration and Small
Power Production Facility <= 1MW (Self-Certification) respondent
category was incorrectly presented as $3,600 in the 60-day notice
for the FERC-556 information collection (Docket No. IC16-3; 80 FR
74101, 11/27/2015). The figure is corrected to $108 in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0241.
    Abstract: FERC-606 requires agencies and officials responsible for
issuing, conditioning, or denying requests for federal authorizations
necessary for a proposed natural gas project to report to the
Commission regarding the status of an authorization request. This
reporting requirement is intended to allow agencies to assist the
Commission to make better informed decisions in establishing due dates
for agencies' decisions.
    FERC-607 requires agencies or officials to submit to the Commission
a copy of a decision or action on a request for federal authorization
and an accompanying index to the documents and materials relied on in
reaching a conclusion.
    The information collections can neither be discontinued nor
collected less frequently because of statutory requirements. The
consequences of not collecting this information are that the Commission
would be unable to fulfill its statutory mandate under the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 to:
     Establish a schedule for agencies to review requests for
federal authorizations required for a project, and
     Compile a record of each agency's decision, together with
the record of the Commission's decision, to serve as a consolidated
record for the purpose of appeal or review, including judicial review.
    Type of Respondent: Agencies with federal authorization
responsibilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost \8\ (rounded) for the information
collection as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The cost is based on FERC's average cost (salary plus
benefits) of $72/hour for 2015. The Commission staff believes that
the level and skill set (as a reporting agency official, e.g.,
Environmental Program Manager or Reviewer) is comparable to FERC
staff.

    FERC-606--(Notification of Request for Federal Authorization and Requests for Further Information), and FERC-607 (Report on Decision or Action on
                                                           Request for Federal Authorization)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual number
                                        Number of     of responses    Total number     Average burden hours   Total annual  burden hours     Cost per
                                       respondents   per respondent   of responses    and cost per response      and total  annual cost   respondent ($)
                                                (1)             (2)     (1) * (2) =  (4)....................  (3) * (4) = (5)...........       (5) / (1)
                                                                                (3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-606...........................               6               1               6  4 hrs; $288............  24 hrs; $1,728............            $288

FERC-607...........................               1               1               1  1 hr.; $72.............  1 hr.; $72................              72
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total..........................               7  ..............  ..............  .......................  25 hrs; $1,800............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 21, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06776 Filed 3-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 102-103]
[DOCID:fr03ja06-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-94-001]

Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 27, 2005.
    Take notice that on December 15, 2005, Garden Banks Gas Pipeline,
LLC (Garden Banks) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, Second Substitute Revised Sheet No. 15; Second
Substitute Revised Sheet No. 25 and Third Substitute Revised Sheet No.
34, to become effective December 15, 2005.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  154.210 of the
Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must
serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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. E5-8185 Filed 12-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3958-3963]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01497]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2021-0932; FRL-9461-01-R7]

Air Plan Approval; Iowa; Determination of Attainment by the
Attainment Date for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Muscatine sulfur dioxide (SO2)
nonattainment area attained the 2010 1-

hour SO2 primary national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018, based
upon a weight-of-evidence analysis using available air quality
information. Additional analysis of the attainment determination is
provided in a Technical Support Document (TSD) included in the docket
to this proposed rulemaking. This action, if finalized, will address
the EPA's obligation under a consent decree which establishes a
deadline of March 31, 2022 for the EPA to determine under Clean Air Act
(CAA) section 179(c) whether the Muscatine SO2 nonattainment
area attained the NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2021-0932 to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Heitman, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7664; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. Background
    A. The 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards
    B. Designations, Classifications, and Attainment Dates for the
2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
III. Proposed Determination
    A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions
    B. Monitoring Network Considerations
    C. Data Considerations and Proposed Determination
    i. Emissions Information
    ii. Monitoring Data
    iii. Meteorology
    iv. Modeling Information
    v. Conclusion
IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
V. Environmental Justice Concerns
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2021-
0932, at https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

A. The 2010 SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

    Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA has established primary and
secondary NAAQS for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as
``criteria pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to
determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established. The primary NAAQS represent ambient air quality standards
the attainment and maintenance of which the EPA has determined,
including a margin of safety, are requisite to protect the public
health. The secondary NAAQS represent ambient air quality standards the
attainment and maintenance of which the EPA has determined are
requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated
adverse effects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in
the ambient air.
    Under the CAA, the EPA must establish a NAAQS for SO2.
SO2 is primarily released to the atmosphere through the
burning of fossil fuels by power plants and other industrial
facilities. SO2 is also emitted from industrial processes
including metal extraction from ore and heavy equipment that burn fuel
with a high sulfur content. Short-term exposure to SO2 can
damage the human respiratory system and increase breathing
difficulties. Small children and people with respiratory conditions,
such as asthma, are more sensitive to the effects of SO2.
Sulfur oxides at high concentrations can also react with compounds to
form small particulates that can penetrate deeply into the lungs and
cause health problems.
    The EPA first established primary SO2 standards in 1971
at 0.14 parts per million (ppm) over a 24-hour averaging period and 0.3
ppm over an annual averaging period (36 FR 8186, April 30, 1971). In
June 2010, the EPA revised the NAAQS for SO2 to provide
increased protection of public health, providing for revocation of the
1971 primary annual and 24-hour SO2 standards for most areas
of the country following area designations under the new NAAQS. The
2010 NAAQS is 75 parts per billion (ppb) (equivalent to 0.075 ppm) over
a 1-hour averaging period (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). A violation of
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS occurs when the annual 99th
percentile of ambient daily maximum 1-hour average SO2
concentrations, averaged over a 3-year period, exceeds 75 ppb.

B. Designations, Classifications, and Attainment Dates for the 2010 SO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

    Following promulgation of any new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation
as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS.
    On August 5, 2013, the EPA finalized its first round of
designations for the 2010 primary 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (78 FR
47191). In the 2013 action, the EPA designated 29 areas in 16 states as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, including a portion of
Muscatine County in Iowa. The designation was based on air quality
monitoring data from 2009-2011 showing violations of the NAAQS. The
EPA's initial round of designations for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
including the Muscatine nonattainment area (NAA) became effective on
October 4, 2013. Pursuant to CAA sections 172(a)(2) and 192(a), the
maximum attainment date for the Muscatine NAA is October 4, 2018, five
years after the effective date of the final action designating the area
as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

III. Proposed Determination

A. Applicable Statutory and Regulatory Provisions

    Section 179(c)(1) of the CAA requires the EPA to determine whether
a nonattainment area attained an applicable standard by the applicable
attainment date based on the area's air quality as of the attainment
date.
    A determination of whether an area's air quality meets applicable
standards is generally based upon the most recent three years of
complete, quality-assured data gathered at established state and local
air monitoring stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area and entered
into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. Data from ambient air
monitors operated by state and local agencies in compliance with the
EPA monitoring requirements must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring
agencies annually certify that these data are accurate to the best of
their knowledge. All data are reviewed to determine the area's air
quality status in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix T (for
SO2). In general, for SO2 EPA does not rely
exclusively on monitoring data to determine whether the NAAQS is met
unless it has been demonstrated that the monitors were appropriately
sited to record expected maximum ambient concentrations of
SO2 in an area.
    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR 50.17 and in accordance with 40 CFR
part 50, appendix T, the 2010 1-hour annual SO2 standard is
met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the design value is
less than or equal to 75 ppb. Design values are calculated by computing
the three-year average of the annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-
hour average concentrations. When calculating 1-hour primary standard
design values, the calculated design values are rounded to the nearest
whole number or 1 ppb by convention. An SO2 1-hour primary
standard design value is valid if it encompasses three consecutive
calendar years of complete data. A year is considered complete when all
four quarters are complete, and a quarter is complete when at least 75
percent of the sampling days are complete. A sampling day is considered
complete if 75 percent of the hourly concentration values are reported;
this includes data affected by exceptional events that have been
approved for exclusion by the Administrator.

B. Monitoring Network Considerations

    Section 110(a)(2)(B)(i) of the CAA requires states to establish and
operate air monitoring networks to compile data on ambient air quality
for all criteria pollutants. The EPA's monitoring requirements are
specified by regulation in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements are
applicable to state, and where delegated, local air monitoring agencies
that operate criteria pollutant monitors.
    In section 4.4 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, the EPA specifies
minimum monitoring requirements for SO2 to operate at SLAMS.
SLAMS produce data that are eligible for comparison with the NAAQS, and
therefore, the monitor must be an approved Federal reference method
(FRM) or Federal equivalent method (FEM) monitor.
    The minimum number of required SO2 SLAMS is described in
sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. According to
section 4.4.2, the minimum number of required SO2 monitoring
sites is determined by the population weighted emissions index for each
state's core based statistical area. Section 4.4.3 describes additional
monitors that may be required by an EPA regional administrator.
    Under 40 CFR 58.10, states are required to submit annual monitoring
network plans (AMNP) for ambient air monitoring networks for approval
by the EPA. Within the Muscatine NAA, the State is responsible for
assuring that each monitoring site meets air quality monitoring
requirements. Iowa submits an AMNP to the EPA that describes the
various monitoring sites operated by the State. Each AMNP discusses the
status of the air monitoring network as required under 40 CFR 58.10 and
addresses the operation and maintenance of the air monitoring network
in the previous year. The EPA regularly reviews these AMNPs for
compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
58. With the EPA's approval of Iowa's most recent AMNP, the State has
met the applicable minimum monitoring requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's letter approving Iowa's 2021 monitoring network plan
dated December 2, 2021 is included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also conducts regular ``technical systems audits'' (TSAs)
during which we review and inspect ambient air monitoring programs to
assess compliance with applicable regulations concerning the
collection, analysis, validation, and reporting of ambient air quality
data.
    During the 2015-2017 data period, Iowa operated three
SO2 SLAMS in the Muscatine SO2 NAA: Greenwood
Cemetery (AQS ID 19-139-0016); High School East Campus (AQS ID 19-139-
0019); and Musser Park (AQS ID 19-139-0020).

C. Data Considerations and Proposed Determination

    CAA section 179(c)(1) requires the Agency to ``determine, based on
the area's air quality as of the attainment date, whether the area
attained the standard by that date.'' The EPA first assessed what air
quality information was available related to making a determination of
attainment by the attainment date for the Muscatine area. The EPA chose
to employ a weight-of-evidence approach for making this determination
because the EPA does not have any analysis (including modeling)
associated with the monitor siting to demonstrate that the monitors
record maximum ambient SO2 concentrations in the NAA, nor
does EPA have modeling of actual emissions to support a determination
based on modeled ambient concentrations whether the area attained the
NAAQS by the attainment date. The available modeling of permitted
allowable emissions in the area, as discussed later in this document,
does not on its own provide a basis for determining whether the area
attained by the attainment date. Thus, EPA relied upon SO2
emissions data and trends, relevant air monitoring data and trends,
SO2 monitoring data incorporated with local meteorological
data, as well as available modeling information in order to make its
determination under CAA section 179(c)(1). The EPA believes our
analysis of multiple types of air-quality related information to
support our determination is consistent with section 179(c)(1)'s
direction to determine the area's air quality as of the attainment
date. Further detail on EPA's weight-of-evidence analysis is contained
in the technical support document (TSD) included in the docket for this
action.
i. Emissions Information
    There are four facilities that emit or have historically emitted
SO2 located in or near the Muscatine NAA. Three are located
within the nonattainment area--Grain Processing Corporation (GPC),
Muscatine Power and Water (MPW), and Monsanto. Louisa Generating
Station (LGS) is located south of the nonattainment area. Table 1
provides the annual emissions from 2011-2020 from each individual
source along with the total combined emissions among the four
facilities. In the 2011-2015 timeframe, GPC was the largest
SO2 source in the Muscatine area, with the majority of
SO2 emissions attributed to GPC's boilers using coal. A fuel
switch at GPC's coal-fired boilers to natural gas occurred on July 14,
2015, and this change led to large reductions of SO2

emissions at GPC. Prior to 2018, Monsanto was fueled primarily by coal,
with SO2 emissions associated with its main boiler. As
required by a construction permit, Monsanto converted its coal-fired
boiler to use only natural gas in 2018 which eliminated nearly all
SO2 emissions from Monsanto.
    The EPA first evaluated annual SO2 emissions trends
within the Muscatine nonattainment area. By 2017, total annual
emissions in the Muscatine area had dropped approximately 72% from 2014
(24,181 tons per year (tpy) in 2014 to 6,781 tpy in 2017). Much of the
reduction in emissions can be attributed to GPC's fuel conversion to
natural gas in July of 2015, evident by the more than 50% reduction in
annual SO2 emissions at GPC from 2014 (13,075 tpy) to 2015
(6,191 tpy) and further reductions to below 200 tpy in 2016 and 2017.
Overall, GPC's annual SO2 emissions were reduced by 98.7%
from 2014 to 2017.
    In addition to emissions decreases within the nonattainment area,
the EPA also looked at emissions at LGS, the nearby source located
outside the nonattainment area. In the Louisa County Data Requirements
Rule (DRR) modeling,\2\ Iowa modeled LGS using its permitted allowable
rate of 4,270.89 lbs/hour,\3\ which would correspond to an annual total
of 18,706 tpy. Actual annual emissions at LGS during the 2015-2017
timeframe ranged between 5,129 tpy and 6,098 tpy, significantly below
the annual total of 18,706 tpy that corresponded with modeled
attainment. In addition, the actual maximum hourly emission rate at LGS
since 2011, as reported to EPA Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)
database \4\ is 4,014.7 lb/hr, which is also below the 1-hour modeled
emission rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA relied on the DRR modeling submitted by Iowa to
designate Louisa County, containing LGS, as attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in December
2017 (83 FR 1098).
    \3\ The 1-hour SO2 modeling rate used for LGS was
developed from the current 30-day rolling permit limit and actual
emissions following the approach outlined in the EPA's 2014 Guidance
for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area State Implementation Plans.
    \4\ https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.

    Table 1--SO2 Emissions (tons) From 2011 to 2019 for Sources Within and Nearby the Muscatine Nonattainment Area. Emissions Are From EPA's National
                                                                Emissions Inventory (NEI)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Source                        2011        2012        2013        2014        2015        2016        2017        2018        2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPC.........................................      11,970      11,640      12,761      13,075       6,191         187         173          84          89
MPW.........................................       2,374       2,015       2,169       1,821       1,714       1,769       1,167       1,458       1,715
Monsanto....................................         537         543         469         502         402         349         208          ~0          ~0
    Louisa..................................       7,306       8,743       8,285       8,783       6,098       5,129       5,233       7,332       5,286
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...............................      22,187      22,941      23,684      24,181      14,405       7,434       6,781       8,874       7,090
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's evaluation of emissions at sources within and outside of the
nonattainment area indicate significant reductions in emissions in the
2015-2017 timeframe compared to pre-2015 emissions.
ii. Monitoring Data
    Under 40 CFR 58.15, monitoring agencies must certify, on an annual
basis, data collected by FRM or FEMs at all SLAMS, including special
purpose monitors, that meet EPA quality assurance requirements. In
doing so, monitoring agencies must certify that the previous year of
ambient concentration and quality assurance data are completely
submitted to AQS and that the ambient concentration data are accurate
to the best of their knowledge. Iowa annually certifies that the data
it submits to AQS are quality assured, including data collected at
monitoring sites in the Muscatine SO2 NAA.
    For the Muscatine SO2 NAA the applicable attainment date
is October 4, 2018. In accordance with appendix T to 40 CFR part 50,
where determinations of SO2 NAAQS compliance may be made
based on well-sited air quality monitors, compliance with the NAAQS is
based on three consecutive calendar years of data. The three calendar
year period preceding the attainment date for the Muscatine
SO2 NAA is January 1, 2015-December 31, 2017.
    The 3-year design values of 1-hour SO2 from 2011 through
2020 for the three Muscatine area monitors are provided in Table 2 and
the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour SO2 concentrations are
shown in Table 3. All monitor violations occur before the 2015-2017
timeframe, with all three monitors showing violations from 2011-2016.
No monitor violation of the 3-year design value has occurred since
2016, with the largest of the three 2015-2017 1-hour SO2
design values of 65 ppb at the Musser Park site. The trends indicated
in the monitored design values are consistent with EPA's evaluation of
the emissions trends discussed above. As emission reductions were
implemented at the sources in the nonattainment area, SO2
concentrations recorded at the area's air quality monitors decreased.
Specifically, coal combustion at GPC ceased in mid-2015 and coal
combustion at Monsanto ceased in late 2017. Significant decreases in 1-
hour daily maximum SO2 concentrations at the air quality
monitors are consistent with that timeline. While the most recent
complete and quality-assured design values (2018-2020) for the
Greenwood Cemetery, High School East Campus, and Musser Park sites (15,
18, and 20 ppb, respectively) were recorded after the area's attainment
date, they indicate the effectiveness of the area's control measures.
These design values are no greater than 27% of the level of the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS.

                              Table 2--Design Values (ppb) for the 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS for the Muscatine Monitoring Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Site name                          2011-2013   2012-2014   2013-2015   2014-2016   2015-2017   2016-2018   2017-2019   2018-2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenwood Cemetery (19-139-0016)........................  ..........         101          97          77          45          20          17          15
High School E Campus (19-139-0019)......................  ..........  ..........         128          84          42          22          21          18

Musser Park (19-139-0020)...............................         217         194         158         113          65          34          25          20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Table 3--Annual 99th Percentile of 1-Hour Daily Maximum SO2 Concentrations (ppb) Muscatine Monitoring Sites
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Site name                            2013        2014        2015        2016        2017        2018        2019        2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenwood Cemetery (19-139-0016)........................          84         117          91          24          20          15          16          14
High School E Campus (19-139-0019)......................         147         161          75          30          20          16          25          13
Musser Park (19-139-0020)...............................         179         179         116          45          35          24          16          20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Meteorology
    The EPA does not have conclusive evidence to support that the
monitors are sited in the area of maximum ambient SO2
concentrations. EPA would typically rely on the siting analysis
performed to originally site the monitors or modeling of actual
emissions to demonstrate the monitors are sited in the area of maximum
concentrations. There is not a specific analysis associated with the
siting of the monitors nor does EPA have access to modeling of actual
emissions for sources in or near the nonattainment area to make such a
determination. In the absence of that information, EPA has also
evaluated local meteorology along with the monitored SO2
values to evaluate the likelihood of maximum ambient concentrations
occurring in locations that the monitors could not record. Hourly wind
speeds and direction were collected from the Muscatine Airport, which
is located approximately 8 kilometers southwest of GPC and the Musser
Park and High School SO2 monitors. The hourly winds were
combined into a dataset with the coinciding one hour monitored
SO2 concentrations and plotted using SO2
pollution roses. This analysis provides information to help determine
from where (and potentially what source) the monitored impacts were
coming. In summary, the monitors appear to be positioned in downwind
areas of relatively high impacts as indicated by pollution roses. Full
details of the local meteorology analysis and pollution roses are
provided in the TSD.
iv. Modeling Information
    The EPA considered relying on two separate modeling demonstrations
for the Muscatine area. Modeling performed by the State of Iowa for
purposes of the control strategy and attainment demonstration for the
area was submitted to EPA in May 2016. EPA later approved the
attainment plan and modeling in a final action in November 2020 (85 FR
73218). That final action has since been remanded without vacatur to
EPA.\5\ The State of Iowa also submitted modeling pursuant to the
SO2 DRR for LGS in January 2017. This DRR modeling was the
basis for EPA's Round 3 designation of Attainment/Unclassifiable for
Louisa County (containing LGS) in December 2017 (83 FR 1098). Both sets
of modeling rely on permitted allowable emissions rates \6\ \7\ that
were in place by the October 4, 2018, attainment date and were
previously found by EPA to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS as noted
above. However, the EPA is not relying on Iowa's attainment
demonstration modeling as a basis for our proposed determination,
because that modeling may be revisited as part of the EPA's
reconsideration action per the D.C. Circuit's remand of EPA's approval
of Iowa's attainment plan. Rather, as discussed above, we are relying
on the DRR modeling to provide a comparison between the much higher
modeled emission rates at the sources and the actual recorded emissions
to provide additional evidence that the entire area was attaining the
NAAQs as of October 4, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The final approval action was challenged in the D.C. Cir. on
January 15, 2021 and was placed in abeyance on February 3, 2021.
Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 21-1022 (D.C. Cir.). EPA filed an unopposed
motion to the court for a voluntary remand without vacatur and
indicated that EPA would take a final reconsideration action no
later than December 1, 2023. The D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion
on December 17, 2021.
    \6\ The permits containing the emissions limits also contain
exemptions for periods of startup, shutdown, and cleaning.
    \7\ Monsanto was modeled with actual emissions for the Louisa
County DRR modeling demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

v. Conclusion
    In sum, and as discussed further in the TSD, we propose to find
that the weight of the available evidence indicates that the Muscatine
area attained the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the 2015-2017
timeframe by the October 4, 2018 attainment date. Specifically, the
significant reductions in emissions during the relevant time period
from sources within the nonattainment area and a nearby source outside
the nonattainment area, coupled with corresponding decreased monitored
SO2 concentrations within the nonattainment area during that
same time period lead us to our proposed determination that the area
attained by its attainment date. Local meteorological data help confirm
that the air quality monitors are unlikely to have missed high
concentrations, and the available modeling information and emissions
data of the nearby LGS source (which may not be reflected in the air
quality monitoring data from within the nonattainment area) also
supports the EPA's determination, as actual historical emissions from
that source during the relevant time period were significantly below
the emissions that were modeled to be consistent with attainment of the
NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    The EPA conducted a weight-of-evidence analysis, described in
detail above and in the TSD, to determine if the Muscatine
SO2 nonattainment area attained the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date by
evaluating all available technical information and data relevant to the
SO2 air quality (e.g., emissions, monitoring, meteorological
data, and modeling) in the Muscatine, Iowa, area. Based on the analysis
and information presented in this document and the TSD contained in

the docket for this action, the EPA proposes to determine that the
Muscatine SO2 NAA attained the 2010 1-hour SO2
standard by the applicable attainment date of October 4, 2018,
consistent with CAA section 179(c)(1).
    In addition, this action, if finalized, will address EPA's
obligation under a consent decree in Center for Biological Diversity,
et al. v. Regan, which establishes a deadline of March 31, 2022 for the
EPA to determine under CAA section 179(c) whether the Muscatine County
SO2 nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the October 4,
2018 attainment date.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Regan, No. 3:20-
cv-05436-EMC (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed action does not constitute a redesignation of the
Muscatine SO2 NAA to attainment for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have not
yet approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the
requirements of section 175A of the CAA and have not determined that
the area has met the other CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) requirements for
redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part
81 will remain nonattainment until the EPA has determined that Iowa has
met the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment for the
Muscatine SO2 NAA.
    This is a proposed action and we are soliciting comments on this
proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any
comments.

V. Environmental Justice Concerns

    When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires
the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment,
attainment, or unclassifiable. Area designations address environmental
justice concerns by ensuring that the public is properly informed about
the air quality in an area.
    The EPA utilized the EJSCREEN tool to evaluate environmental and
demographic indicators within the area. The tool outputs report is
contained in the docket for this action. While the EPA's EJSCREEN tool
demonstrates that demographic indicators are consistent or lower than
national averages, there are vulnerable populations in the area
including low-income populations and persons over 64 years of age.
    This action addresses EPA's determination, as required by the CAA,
of whether the Muscatine County, Iowa, area attained the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS by the relevant attainment date. This action
proposes to determine an area has attained the NAAQS by the relevant
attainment date, but it does not change the geographic status of the
area nor does it impose additional or modify existing requirements on
sources. Based on the information presented in this document and the
associated technical support document, the EPA is proposing to
determine that the air quality in the Muscatine County area is
attaining the NAAQS. For these reasons, this proposed action does not
result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations
and/or indigenous peoples.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to determine an area has attained the NAAQS by
the relevant attainment date and does not impose additional or modify
existing requirements. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; and
     This action does not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations,
low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The basis for
this determination is contained in section V of this action,
``Environmental Justice Concerns.''

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: January 20, 2022.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. Revise Sec.  52.834 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.834  Control strategy: Sulfur dioxide.

    (a) Approval. On April 21, 1997, the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources (IDNR) submitted a maintenance plan and redesignation request
for the Muscatine County nonattainment area for the 1971 SO2
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The maintenance plan and
redesignation request satisfy all applicable requirements of the Clean
Air Act.
    (b) Determination of attainment by the attainment date. As of [date
30 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register], the EPA has determined that the Muscatine, Iowa,
SO2 nonattainment area has attained the 2010 1-hour
SO2 primary NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
October 4, 2018.

[FR Doc. 2022-01497 Filed 1-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


May 20, 2011

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  	Cummins In-Use Data Collection on SCR Operation

FROM:  	Justin Greuel 		Office of Transportation and Air Quality

TO:  		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0444 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      On April 6, 2011, Cummins Inc. provided the following information to the Agency regarding efforts to collect data from SCR-equipped trucks operating in-use.  The information was provided as a supplement to in-use data summarized in comments submitted by Cummins Inc. to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0444 on August 20, 2010 (see docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0444-0011.1).        IN-USE DATA COLLECTION RESULTS

   Below is the information Cummins Inc. has collected from 47 different customer owned vehicles (with our 11.9L and 15L engines) operating across the US.  The vehicles have over 2.4 million miles of operation so far.  Cummins has data-loggers on these vehicles' engines.  The data-loggers have an embedded cell phone function, which sends the data to Cummins nightly.  About half the engines in these vehicles are owned by Cummins; the other half are customer owned.  All the vehicles, however, are operated and maintained by the customers.

Of the 47 vehicles:

   * Less than 0.13% of the miles (3,002 miles) were operated where DEF level was in the 5-10% range.

   * Less than 0.03% of the miles (737 miles) were operated where DEF level was in the 2.5-5% range.

   * Less than 0.04% of the miles (918 miles) were operated where DEF level was in the 0-2.5% range (derated performance condition).

   * Less than 0.02% of the miles (516 miles) were operated where DEF level was 0% or empty (derated performance condition).

   * More than 99.7% of the miles were operated where DEF level was maintained above 10% .

   * For DEF quality, less than 0.18% (4,362 miles) of the miles were operated where a faulted condition existed for DEF quality.


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management 2. OMB control number b.

None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ 2040 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a.

New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a.

Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes

No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a.

Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Information Collection Request for the State Water Quality Program Management Gap Analysis.

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Number 1945.01 9. Keywords Water pollution control, water resources 10. Abstract: EPA, in partnership with States, is conducting the State Water Quality Management Gap Analysis ( Gap Analysis) to help enumerate current and future funding needs and to help identify innovative strategies for reducing resource gaps. The Gap Analysis involves developing a detailed, activity based workload model to provide a common framework for States and EPA to estimate the resource needs necessary to assess specific water quality concerns. In order to complete the model, EPA's Office of Wastewater Management ( OWM) needs to gather data from State Water Quality Management Programs on the resources needed by each State for water quality management activities.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. P State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 20 b. Total annual responses 20 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 100% c. Total hours requested 3603 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 3603 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 3603 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 0 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 0 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. _ P Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c.

Reporting 1.

On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Other ( describe) One Time 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes

No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Carol Crow Phone: ( 202) 260 6742 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Michael B. Cook, Director Office of Wastewater Management Office of Water Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39358-39360]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12844]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0144]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Glorietta Bay, Coronado, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the U.S. within an 800-foot radius of the City of
Coronado's 4th of July fireworks display at Stingray Point. The safety
zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display.
Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector San Diego.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4,
2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0144 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Shera Kim, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable, as we did not
receive final details for this event until April 24, 2023. The Coast
Guard must establish this safety zone by July 4, 2023, and lacks
sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and consider
those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying implementation of this
rulemaking is impracticable and contrary to public interest because
action is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display on
July 4, 2023.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector San Diego (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on July 4,
2023, will be a safety

concern for anyone within an 800-foot radius of the display location.
This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the
fireworks display.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. on
July 4, 2023. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within an
800-foot radius of the fireworks display at Stingray Point, Coronado,
CA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the
fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will only
impact a small, designated area of Glorietta Bay for two hours in the
evening. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via
VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting only 2 hours that will prohibit entry within an
800-foot radius of a fireworks display. It is categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of
this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-130 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-130  Safety Zone; Glorietta Bay, Coronado, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of Glorietta Bay, from surface to bottom, within an 800-foot
radius centered at the following coordinates: 32[deg]40'45.61'' N,
117[deg]10'1.43'' W.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port San Diego (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by calling the 24-hour Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or via VHF channel 16.
    (3) Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
to 10 p.m. on July 4, 2023.

    Dated: June 6, 2023.
J.W. Spitler,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2023-12844 Filed 6-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30376]
[DOCID:fr25my11-103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1971-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Alabama; Amendment No. 12 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1971-DR), dated April 28, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 28, 2011.

    Cherokee, Choctaw, Colbert, Etowah, Fayette, Hale, Jefferson,
Lauderdale, Lawrence, Marengo, Morgan, St. Clair, Sumter, Talladega,
and Tallapoosa Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G],
(already designated for Individual Assistance and assistance for
debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and
B], including direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-12909 Filed 5-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


CAIR Replacement Rule

Discussions between Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and
EPA

April 28, 2009

I.  Introduction

	On Tuesday, April 28, 2009, EPA held a call with the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to discuss the CAIR replacement rule.
The summary that follows covers the key issues discussed during the
call.

II.  EPA Opening Comments

	Sam Napolitano, CAMD, noted that illness had prevented Bill Harnett,
OAQPS, from joining the call, but that some of his key staff were on the
call.  Sam then briefly outlined the current situation, explaining that
EPA was beginning the process of creating a replacement rule for CAIR.
The Agency is reviewing all options, setting up analyses, and preparing
technical models.  The goal is to finalize a replacement rule within two
years.

	The primary objectives are to help states comply with the NAAQS and to
reduce interstate transport.  Therefore, EPA has decided that it would
be best to start working with states and stakeholders immediately.  EPA
has already held a number of meetings with state groups and stakeholders
and would like to hear from Texas about what type of replacement rule
would be most practical while also achieving the required emission
reductions.  Sam stressed that this is the beginning of a dialogue
process, and that EPA intends to continue these types of discussions
throughout the rule development process.

	This is a chance for the stakeholders to talk to the key EPA staff that
will actually develop and write the rules, as well as the OGC attorneys
assigned to the rule development.  Sam stressed that EPA is interested
in hearing the stakeholders' thoughts and concerns.  Everything is on
the table as EPA puts together ideas for the new Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, who should arrive within the next couple of
weeks.

III.  TCEQ Opening Discussion

	Kim Herndon, TCEQ, thanked Sam and EPA for the opportunity to share
ideas and to discuss the replacement CAIR rule.  She indicated that for
the most part TCEQ had questions for EPA, and she began by asking how
the CAIR replacement rule would mesh with CAIR as it is currently in
effect.

	Sam explained that the current CAIR rule was in effect and that EPA
credits the rule with 2.4 million tons of reductions and the largest SO2
reductions in 15 years.  EPA has distributed allowances for all sources
through 2010, and some sources were given allowances for 2011-2013.  In
general, the Agency is waiting for the new Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation before distributing later year allowances.  EPA has
informed the designated representatives (DRs) at the affected facilities
that the original CAIR will be in effect through 2010, after which it is
unclear what will happen.  The Agency has cautioned DRs to be careful
about trading or buying later year allowances given the regulatory
uncertainty.

	Kim noted that Texas was under the FIP for Phase II of the original
CAIR.  TCEQ has been instructed by the state legislature to revise the
SIP for approval so that the state is not under the FIP for Phase II.
She asked what TCEQ should do, given that the replacement CAIR rule is
supposed to be promulgated before Phase II.  Sam replied that a specific
discussion about Texas' SIP would be better coordinated through EPA
Region 6.  EPA would be very interested in helping work through any SIP
issues, but that process has to go through the Regions.

	TCEQ posed several questions about details of the new CAIR replacement
rule, at which point Sonja Rodman, OGC, intervened to provide context to
the discussion.  She explained that EPA was at the very beginning of the
rulemaking process and had not made any decisions about specifics of a
replacement rule.  She noted that the D.C. Circuit Court had remanded
the rule after finding substantial flaws in how EPA had addressed
significant contribution.  The court ruled that EPA had failed to
quantify each state's individual contribution and found that the remedy
did not adequately remove each state's significant contribution.  EPA
now confronts fundamental questions about how to address significant
contribution and create a remedy that satisfies the court's decision.

	The purpose of this meeting is to get a sense of what the states need
from EPA.  The Agency is not in a position to discuss the details of the
replacement rule because fundamental decisions about how the new rule
will work still need to be made by incoming management.  This is an
opportunity for Texas to talk to EPA about how the state believes the
Agency should address the fundamental issues raised by the court.

Susana Hildebrand, TCEQ, explained that Texas was primarily concerned
with not penalizing sources in the state that had already made
significant NOx reductions as a result of state legislative requirements
set years ago.  Texas does not want to require further reductions from
those sources because, on average, other states have not made similar
reductions.

	The group then turned to discuss the agenda EPA had provided and
distributed before the call.

III.  Discussion of Agenda

1.  Baseline

	Sam Napolitano noted that a number of issues arose during consideration
of which year to use as a baseline.  Some states have expressed concerns
about using a future year because of the many extrapolations required.
Other concerns center on the fact that MACT requirements, and other
known settlements that will require controls to be installed, could not
be taken into account using current year data.  Because EPA knows that
the emission situation will have changed by the time the replacement
rule is promulgated, some have argued that the Agency should try to
forecast a future year baseline.

	Susana Hildebrand expressed concern that units that have already
installed scrubbers might be unable to make further significant
reductions.  She suggested that EPA should use some type of emissions
factor or other mechanism to credit facilities that have already made
reductions and reward the early investment.  EPA should not require a
flat percentage reduction.

Tim Smith, OAQPS, explained that EPA is wrestling with how to consider
cost when looking at significant contribution and a remedy that
satisfies the court decision.  In Texas' situation, where the sources
are already well-controlled, further reductions would clearly have a
much higher cost.  Susana agreed with Tim's characterization of her
comment as expressing a preference that EPA consider cost.

David Schanbacher, TCEQ, provided additional background on the reduction
percentages that Texas has achieved.  He noted that Texas implemented a
cap and trade program in the 1990s for grandfathered facilities that had
not gone through the permitting process.  Through this program Texas was
able to achieve 50% reductions on average statewide.  Given this
success, the SIP group created a similar program for permitted
facilities, which gave Texas about a 50% reduction across the board.
The state has also achieved significant reductions under SIP plans
implemented for Houston and Dallas, where they have realized nearly 90%
reductions.  Texas has also been working to replace some of the older
natural gas fired peaker units that have been responsible for
significant NOx emissions.

	David noted that fear of being penalized is one of the primary concerns
of facility owners, and one of the reasons they resist putting on
controls proactively.  TCEQ believes that large reductions have been
achieved in Texas under the plans that have been implemented, and it
does not want federal regulations to penalize owners who put on controls
either proactively or in response to state regulations.

Sam said he understood TCEQ's concerns.  EPA has attempted in the past
to consider, in an even-handed manner, the significant contribution that
upwind states make to downwind states and to set a limit where all
states over the limit for ozone or fine particles would, in an equitable
way, be part of addressing the transport problem for downwind states.
He asked if TCEQ was concerned with EPA continuing to address transport
in that manner.

Susana Hildebrand explained that one of the key concerns is Texas's size
and the geographic location of all its plants.  Western plants have no
significant transport issues in most cases, but they get drawn into the
program because eastern plants are affecting neighboring states.  Texas
is large enough that multiple states could fit within its borders.
Perhaps one way EPA could address this geographic challenge is to divide
the state into quarters.

David then noted that Texas is the one state with a self-contained grid,
which means it does not generate energy within its borders to export to
other states.  For the most part, what is generated in Texas is also
consumed here.

2.  Quantifying Significant Contribution

Sonja Rodman said that significant contribution was a big area to
address, with many options for the replacement rule.  For CAIR, EPA
established significant contribution through a two step process.  EPA
first conducted air quality modeling to determine which states should be
included in the region and then looked at the cost-effectiveness of
controls to determine significant contribution.  EPA established
regional caps and developed the state budgets for each pollutant
involved.  The D.C. Circuit Court ruled that EPA had failed to quantify
individual state significant contributions and thus also did not require
the specific state to eliminate its significant contribution.  As EPA
develops the new rule it is considering alternate ways to define
significant contribution.  The Agency welcomes suggestions, especially
on what role modeling and cost-effectiveness should play in quantifying
and remedying significant contribution.

TCEQ replied that it had not formed an opinion regarding significant
contribution or cost analysis.  TCEQ strongly criticized the idea that
west Texas was contributing to Illinois and east St.  Louis.

Sonja indicated that EPA would accept comments on dividing Texas for the
purpose of the CAIR replacement rule.  However, the issue has already
been litigated and is partially addressed in the recent court decision.
Kim Herndon offered to assemble more formal comments on the issue.
Sonja noted that one issue to address is whether any suggested dividing
lines are specifically related to interstate transport.  Kim responded
that the only differences between one state and another are government
boundaries.  Therefore, Texas should be able to create boundaries within
the state.

Sonja noted that the Agency is willing to consider all options.
However, from a defensibility standpoint lines unrelated to interstate
transport seem more difficult to defend in court.  Accepting a boundary
drawn by Texas is very different than working with state boundaries.

3.  Remedy

	Tim Smith outlined the issue of remedy:  What remedy should be applied
to the quantified significant contribution?  What types of approaches
should be considered?  Is the trading option practical?  Tim noted that
EPA had heard suggestions ranging from a strict command-and-control
program to a trading program, as well as various combinations of the
two.  Some states expressed interest in combining looser standards with
a trading program in an effort to leverage the increased reductions that
can be gained by allowing trading.

TCEQ indicated that it generally supports the cap and trade philosophy
and believes there is value in allocating allowances in a manner that
gives credit to facilities already operating at low emission rates.
TCEQ raised concerns that in the past rules have been developed that did
not take into consideration trading programs other than the NOx SIP
Call.  Texas has a cap and trade program separate from the NOx SIP Call.
 Assumptions about the NOx SIP Call do not apply to all states with
trading programs.  It is frustrating when comments from EPA Headquarters
do not seem to recognize the existence of other trading programs.

Sam acknowledged TCEQ's concern and indicated that he had heard about
the program before during a presentation by Susana Hildebrand at MIT.
Per Sam's request, Susana agreed to send him materials about Texas' cap
and trade program.

Tim asked for examples of the types of comments TCEQ thought overlooked
their program.  Kim noted that she did not have any specific comment in
front of her, but that responses concerning state trading programs would
often start with such phrases as "If you are a NOx SIP Call state this
applies, otherwise this does not apply to you".  In general, the
responses seemed to imply that the NOx SIP Call is the only program of
its kind, which is not true because there are states with different cap
and trade programs.

Sam noted that nothing said at this point would be taken as an official
position.  These calls are a chance for states to think aloud and offer
ideas.

Susana suggested that EPA consider trading zones so that states can
count on certain reductions during ozone planning.  It is hard for
states to incorporate CAIR reductions into modeling for their SIPs.  A
trading zone would guarantee states that there would be certain amounts
of reduction within a trading zone.  States could then incorporate those
known reductions into SIP planning.  Under the original CAIR it was not
clear where the reductions would take place, which made it harder to try
and incorporate those reductions in the planning process.

Sam said that EPA considered trading zones during the NOx SIP Call, but
that it ultimately decided not to include the zones.  He asked whether
TCEQ had thoughts about major air sheds or about how EPA should set up
the zones.  Susana replied that TCEQ did not have any specific
recommendations to make.  It would like to see improvements in the Gulf
cost region that might help the Houston and Beaumont areas.
Specifically, there are concerns about transport from Louisiana, and
Louisiana has similar concerns about transport from Texas.  A trading
zone in which both states could quantify the reductions would be
helpful.

4.  Affected Area/National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

	Which states or regions should be covered by the rule?  Sam Napolitano
noted that some stakeholders had recommended expanding CAIR to include
western states.  What should the timing of the rule look like?  Should
EPA start with existing NAAQS?  Or, should it try to integrate the newer
NAAQS into a replacement rule?  Timing becomes a key element when
considering which NAAQS to target.

Kim Herndon suggested that it would be helpful if the reductions from
the CAIR replacement rule lined up with the attainment dates.  For
example, the initial NOx part of the current CAIR will be implemented in
2010 and Texas needs the reductions in 2009.  Sam noted that the CAIR
annual NOx program began on January 1, 2009.

Tim Smith then asked whether EPA should address the 2008 NAAQS.  Susana
Hildebrand said EPA should address the 2008 NAAQS and by-pass the 2006
NAAQS because by achieving the 2008 levels states would have met the
2006 requirements.  She then inquired whether EPA thought the
replacement rule would continue with an annual and summer program.  Sam
responded that the summer program was largely to reassure the eastern
states that the NOx Budget program reductions were achieved.

Susana suggested that the ozone season become an annual program because
if other states are contributing to Texas' ozone problem, those states
should have the same year-round controls Texas requires.  With the
lowering of the NAAQS and possible inclusion of the entire state, it is
even more important that other contributing states have annual controls.

Sam noted that EPA had transitioned away from the NOx Budget program and
into CAIR.  What happens between now and when the final revised CAIR is
published is unclear, but EPA does feel that the program has been
extremely helpful in reducing ozone problems in the east.

IV.  Concluding Points

	Sam Napolitano thanked TCEQ members and said EPA would take all of
their suggestions under consideration.  He mentioned that meeting notes
would be sent out to all the participants and suggested that they
include additional comments as addenda to the notes.  This will help
continue the dialogue process.

	TCEQ thanked EPA for providing an opportunity to begin the dialogue
process.  Staff will continue discussing the issues EPA has raised and
will try to add comments or further thoughts to the meeting notes.

Page   PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  2