[Federal Register: August 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 168)]
[Notices]
[Page 51608-51609]
[DOCID:fr30au06-95]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1971-079; Idaho/Oregon]

Idaho Power Company; Notice of Intent To Hold Public Meetings

August 23, 2006.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects reviewed the application for license for the Hells
Canyon Project (FERC No. 1971), located on the Snake River in
Washington and Adams, Counties, Idaho, and Wallowa and Baker Counties,
Oregon, and issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (draft EIS)
for the project on July 28, 2006.
    Copies of the draft EIS are available for review at the
Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 or may be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the e-Library link by entering

the docket number, P-1971,

in the e-Library docket number field. For assistance, e-mail FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You are invited to attend any or all of the public meetings that
will be held to receive comments on the draft EIS.

Additional Public Meeting

    In addition to previously scheduled public meetings in Boise
(September 7 and 8, 2006) and Weiser (September 12, 2006), Idaho, and
Halfway, Oregon (September 11, 2006), FERC staff will conduct an
additional public meeting in Lewiston, Idaho. The time and location of
the additional meeting is as follows:

Lewiston, ID

    Date: September 13, 2006.
    Time: 7 to 9 p.m. (PDT).
    Place: Lewiston Community Center.
    Address: 1424 Main Street, Lewiston, ID 83501. (A parking lot is
available on G Street behind the Community Center.)
    At these meetings, resource agency personnel and other interested
persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments
and recommendations regarding the draft EIS. The meetings will be
recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (verbal and written)
will become part of the Commission's public record for the project.
These meetings are posted on the Commission's calendar located at
http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other

related information.
    Whether or not you attend one of these meetings, you are invited to
submit written comments on the draft EIS. Comments should be filed with
Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All comments must be filed by
October 3, 2006, and should reference Project No. 1971-079. Comments
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Library'' link.

    The Commission staff will consider comments made on the draft EIS
in preparing a final EIS for the project. Before the Commission makes a
licensing decision, it will take into account all concerns relevant to
the public interest. The final EIS will be part of the record from
which the Commission will make its decision.
    For further information, contact Alan Mitchnick at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Emily Carter at<PHONE_NUMBER>,

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14395 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1895-1900]
[FR Doc No: 2012-447]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0876; FRL-9617-9]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, we are proposing to approve South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 317, ``Clean Air Act Non-
Attainment Fee,'' as a revision to SCAQMD's portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). Rule 317 is a local rule submitted to
address section 185 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). We are proposing
that Rule 317, an equivalent alternative program, is not less stringent
than the program required by section 185, and, therefore, is
approvable, consistent with the principles of section 172(e) of the
Act. As part of this action, we are inviting public comment on whether
it is appropriate for EPA to consider equivalent alternative programs,
and, if so, whether Rule 317 would constitute an approvable equivalent
alternative program. We are taking comments on these proposals and plan
to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by February 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0876, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or email. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What did the State submit?
II. Are there other versions of this rule?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Background
V. What is the legal rationale for this action?
VI. What is EPA's analysis of SCAQMD's alternative program?
VII. Proposed Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What did the State submit?

    On February 4, 2011, SCAQMD adopted Rule 317, ``Clean Air Act Non-
attainment Fee,'' to meet the requirements of CAA section 185. On April
22, 2011, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted SCAQMD's
Rule 317 to EPA. On May 19, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal met
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be
met before formal EPA review. SCAQMD provided supplemental information
in a letter dated December 21, 2011.

II. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 317 in the SIP. Although the
SCAQMD adopted an earlier version of Rule 317 on December 5, 2008, that
rule was never submitted to EPA for approval as a SIP revision.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Rule 317 as a revision to SCAQMD's
portion of the California SIP. The purpose of Rule 317 is to satisfy
the requirements of sections 182 and 185 of the Act by utilizing an
equivalency approach consistent with the principles of section 172(e)
of the Act. Under Rule 317, SCAQMD will track, calculate, analyze, and
report to demonstrate that the requirements of section 185 of the Act
have been met. Rule 317 includes: Calculation of CAA non-attainment
(section 185) fee obligation, establishment of a ``section 172(e) fee
equivalency account,'' an annual demonstration of equivalency, an
annual preliminary determination of equivalency, reporting to CARB and
EPA, and a backstop provision for failure to achieve equivalency. The
``section 172(e) fee equivalency account'' will include funds from
qualified programs that are surplus to the 1-hour ozone SIP and
designed to result in direct reductions or facilitate

future reductions of VOC or NOX emissions.
    In this action, EPA is also proposing to approve Rule 317 as an
alternative to the program required by section 185 of the Act. We are
proposing that SCAQMD's equivalent alternative program is not less
stringent than the program required by section 185, and, therefore, is
approvable, consistent with the principles of section 172(e) of the Act
as explained more fully below. We are taking comments on these
proposals and plan to follow with a final action.

IV. Background

Section 185 Fees

    Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), (f) and 185 of the Act, states with
ozone nonattainment areas classified as Severe or Extreme are required
to submit a revision to the SIP that would require major stationary
sources of VOC or NOX to pay a fee for each ton of VOC or
NOX emitted in excess of 80% of baseline emissions.\1\ Under
section 185(a) of the Act, the SIP revision must provide that the fees
be paid if the area to which the SIP revision applies has failed to
attain the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard) by the applicable attainment date. A source's baseline
emissions are its actual emissions during the required attainment year.
The fee rate is $5,000 per ton in 1990 dollars, which must be adjusted
for inflation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ VOC help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm
human health and the environment. NOX helps produce
ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human
health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

South Coast Air Quality Management District

    There are two 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas within the
jurisdiction of the SCAQMD: The Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area
(South Coast Air Basin) and the Coachella Valley region of Riverside
County in the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area
(Riverside County portion of Southeast Desert Modified AQMA).\2\ The
South Coast Air Basin is an Extreme nonattainment area for the 1-hour
ozone standard; the attainment year is 2010. The Riverside County
portion of the Southeast Desert Modified AQMA is a Severe-17
nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard; the attainment year
is 2007. Therefore, California was required under sections 182(d)(3),
(e) and (f) to develop and submit a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of section 185, which are discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Riverside County portion of Southeast Desert Modified
AQMA'' is the same geographic area as ``Riverside County portion of
the Salton Sea Air Basin'' and Rule 317 uses the latter terminology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 30, 2011, we published a finding that the South Coast
Air Basin and the Southeast Desert Modified AQMA failed to attain the
1-hour ozone standard by their applicable attainment dates (76 FR
82133).
    Pursuant to California law, the SCAQMD is responsible for
developing rules, such as Rule 317, that are intended to meet CAA SIP
requirements for the two nonattainment areas described above under
SCAQMD jurisdiction. Such rules are then submitted to EPA after
adoption by CARB, which is the State agency responsible for SIP matters
on behalf of the State of California. On April 22, 2011, CARB submitted
Rule 317 to satisfy SCAQMD's obligations under sections 182 and 185 of
the Act.

V. What is the legal rationale for equivalent alternative programs?

    EPA is proposing that states can meet the section 185 obligation
arising from the revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS through a SIP revision
containing either the fee program prescribed in section 185 of the Act,
or an equivalent alternative program. As further explained below, EPA
is proposing that an alternative program may be acceptable if EPA
determines, through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that it is
consistent with the principles of section 172(e) of the CAA and is not
less stringent than a program prescribed by section 185.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA has previously set forth this reasoning in a memorandum
from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Air Division Directors, ``Guidance on Developing Fee
Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1-hour Ozone
NAAQS,'' January 5, 2010 (``Section 185 Guidance Memo''). On July 1,
2011, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this guidance, on the
ground that it was final agency action for which notice-and-comment
rulemaking procedures were required. NRDC v. EPA, No. 10-1056, 2011
WL 2601560, C.A.D.C. 2011. EPA subsequently set forth this reasoning
in a rulemaking action concerning an equivalent alternative 185
program submitted as a SIP revision to EPA by the State of
California on behalf of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District (``SJVUAPCD''). 76 FR 45213 (July 28, 2011). In so
doing, we were applying the court's directive to follow the
rulemaking requirements set forth in the Administrative Procedures
Act to inform consideration of section 185 and equivalent
alternative programs. In this action regarding SCAQMD Rule 317, we
are again applying the court's directive to follow rulemaking
requirements with respect to section 185 and equivalent alternative
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(e) is an anti-backsliding provision of the CAA that
requires EPA to develop regulations to ensure that controls in a
nonattainment area are ``not less stringent'' than those that applied
to the area before EPA revised a NAAQS to make it less stringent. In
the Phase 1 Ozone Implementation Rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS
published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA determined that although
section 172(e) does not directly apply where EPA has strengthened the
NAAQS, as it did in 1997, it was reasonable to apply to the transition
from the 1-hour NAAQS to the more stringent 1997 8-hour NAAQS, the same
anti-backsliding principle that would apply to the relaxation of a
standard. Thus, as part of applying the principles in section 172(e)
for purposes of the transition from the 1-hour standard to the 1997 8-
hour standard, EPA can either require states to retain programs that
applied for purposes of the 1-hour standard, or can allow states to
adopt equivalent alternative programs, but only if such alternatives
are determined through notice-and-comment rulemaking to be ``not less
stringent'' than the mandated program. EPA has previously identified
three types of alternative programs that could satisfy the section 185
requirement: (i) Those that achieve the same emissions reductions; (ii)
those that raise the same amount of revenue and establish a process
where the funds would be used to pay for emission reductions that will
further improve ozone air quality; and (iii) those that would be
equivalent through a combination of both emission reductions and
revenues.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ These types of programs were identified in our rulemaking
action concerning SJVUAPCD's alternative section 185 fee program 76
FR 45213 (July 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing today to determine through notice-and-comment
rulemaking that states can demonstrate an alternative program's
equivalency by comparing expected fees and/or emissions reductions
directly attributable to application of section 185 to the expected
fees, pollution control project funding, and/or emissions reductions
from the proposed alternative program. Under an alternative program,
states might opt to shift the fee burden from a specific set of major
stationary sources to non-major sources, such as owners of mobile
sources that also contribute to ozone formation. EPA also believes that
alternative programs, if approved as ``not less stringent'' than the
section 185 fee program, would encourage one-hour ozone NAAQS
nonattainment areas to reach attainment as effectively and
expeditiously as a section 185 fee program, if not more so, and
therefore satisfy the CAA's goal of attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS.

    While section 185 focuses most directly on assessing emissions
fees, we believe it is useful to interpret anti-backsliding
requirements for section 185 within the context of the CAA's ozone
implementation provisions of subpart 2 (which includes section 185).
The subpart 2 provisions are designed to promote reductions of ozone-
forming pollutant emissions to levels that achieve attainment of the
ozone NAAQS. In this context, to satisfy the anti-backsliding
requirements for section 185 associated with the 1-hour NAAQS we
believe it is appropriate for states to implement equivalent
alternative programs that maintain a focus on achieving further
emission reductions, whether that occurs through the incentives created
by fees levied on pollution sources or other funding of pollution
control projects, or some combination of both. For any alternative
program adopted by a state, the state's demonstration that the program
is not less stringent should consist of comparing expected fees and/or
emission reductions directly attributable to application of section 185
to the expected fees, pollution control project funding, and/or
emissions reductions from the proposed alternative program. For a valid
demonstration to ensure equivalency, the state's submissions should not
underestimate the expected fees and/or emission reductions from the
section 185 fee program, nor overestimate the expected fees, pollution
control project funding, and/or emission reductions associated with the
proposed alternative program.
    We also note that the structure established in Subparts 1 and 2 of
the CAA recognizes that successful achievement of clean air goals
depends in great part on the development by states of clean air plans
that that are specifically tailored to the nature of the air pollution
sources in each state. The Act recognizes that states are best suited
to design plans that will be most effective. Allowing states to put
forward an equivalent program under the circumstances that pertain
here, and under the authority of 172(e), is consistent with this
principle of the Act.
    In sum, in order for EPA to approve an alternative program as
satisfying the 1-hour ozone section 185 fee program SIP revision
requirement, the state must demonstrate that the alternative program is
not less stringent than the otherwise applicable section 185 fee
program by collecting fees from owner/operators of pollution sources,
providing funding for emissions reduction projects, and/or providing
direct emissions reductions equal to or exceeding the expected results
of the otherwise applicable section 185 fee program. We are inviting
public comment on whether it is appropriate for EPA to consider
equivalent alternative programs, and, if so, whether Rule 317 would
constitute an approvable equivalent alternative program.

VI. What is EPA's analysis of SCAQMD's alternative program?

Summary of SCAQMD's Alternative Program

    In today's action, we are proposing to approve SCAQMD Rule 317 as
an equivalent alternative program that satisfies the section 185
requirement under the principles of section 172(e). Further information
regarding Rule 317 is set forth below and in EPA's Technical Support
Document (TSD) for this action.
    The purpose of Rule 317 is to satisfy the requirements of section
185 of the Act by utilizing an equivalency approach consistent with the
principles of 172(e) of the Act. Under Rule 317, SCAQMD will track,
calculate, analyze, and report to demonstrate that the requirements of
section 185 of the Act have been met. Rule 317 includes: Calculation of
CAA non-attainment (section 185) fee obligation; establishment of a
``section 172(e) fee equivalency account'' to track qualified
expenditures on pollution control projects; an annual demonstration of
equivalency; an annual preliminary determination of equivalency;
reporting to CARB and EPA; and a backstop provision for failure to
achieve equivalency.
    As described above, there are two 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas
within the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. By letter dated December 21,
2011, SCAQMD clarified that they intend to provide separate equivalency
demonstrations for the two non-attainment areas in that the equivalency
analyses will compare fee obligations within each non-attainment area
to expenditures within the same non-attainment area.
    SCAQMD will establish a ``section 172(e) fee equivalency account''
that will be credited with expenditures from qualified programs that
meet the criteria in section (c)(1)(A) of Rule 317: (i) Surplus to the
1-hour ozone SIP and approved by the District, CARB, and EPA as being
surplus to the SIP; (ii) designed to result in direct VOC or
NOX reductions in SCAQMD, or to facilitate future VOC or
NOX reductions in SCAQMD through vehicle/engine fueling
infrastructure or advanced technology development efforts for
implementation within the next 10 years, or for other uses approved by
EPA; (iii) expenditures occurring only in calendar years subsequent to
2008 from eligible projects; \5\ and (iv) only monies actually expended
from qualified programs during a calendar year shall be credited. Rule
317 provides that the equivalency account may be pre-funded with
expenditures from the programs listed in Attachment A of the rule.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ By letter dated December 21, 2011, SCAQMD clarified that for
the South Coast Air Basin equivalency demonstration, SCAQMD intends
only to include expenditures that occurred in calendar years 2010
and forward.
    \6\ Attachment A of Rule 317 identifies potential sources of
funds for the section 172(e) fee equivalency account. These
potential funding mechanisms include: Fees from motor vehicles
pursuant to AB 118 and AB 27866 and federal grants to fund
retrofitting of school buses and trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCAQMD will annually calculate the total amount of major stationary
source fees that would have been assessed in the prior calendar year
under a direct implementation of section 185 of the Act. A fee is
calculated for each major stationary source whose actual emissions of
VOC or NOX exceed 80% of its baseline emissions. The fee
rate is $5,000 per ton in 1990 dollars, which must be adjusted for
inflation based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
    While CAA section 185 requires baseline emissions to be based on
the lower of the source's actual or allowable \7\ emissions during the
attainment year, it also allows the use of an alternative period as
provided in EPA guidance. Rule 317 specifies that baseline emissions of
an existing source in the South Coast Air Basin will be based on an
average of the source's actual emissions during fiscal years 2005-06
and 2006-07 (which are not to exceed allowable emissions), and would be
programmatically adjusted by SCAQMD to take into account the effects of
new requirements or regulations from 2006 to 2010. In the Salton Sea
Air Basin, an existing source's baseline emissions are its reported
emissions during 2007, the attainment year for the Southeast Desert
Modified AQMA. Rule 317 also specifies that, for sources that become
subject to the rule after the attainment year, baseline emissions are
based on allowable limits in the applicable implementation plan or
potential to

emit, or holdings of RECLAIM Trading Credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Allowable'' emissions are the amount of emissions that are
allowed under the source's permit, or if no such permit has been
issued to the source for the attainment year, the amount of
emissions allowed under the applicable attainment plan (CAA section
185(b)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SCAQMD will annually demonstrate that the funds in the section
172(e) fee equivalency account for the prior year are equal to or
greater than the CAA non-attainment (section 185) fee obligation that
would have been assessed for the prior year.
    SCAQMD will also annually project whether adequate funding is
expected to be available in the section 172(e) fee equivalency account
in the current year in accordance with the equation in section (c)(4)
of the rule. This preliminary determination of equivalency requires the
projection to show that the amount of funds in the fee equivalency
account are at least 110% of the previous year's fee obligation, which
serves as a surrogate for the current year's fee obligation.
    SCAQMD will annually report to CARB and EPA on the results of the
demonstration of equivalency and preliminary determination of
equivalency, as well as information on facilities' fee obligations,
programs and expenditures included in the fee equivalency account, and
any surplus funding carried over to the subsequent calendar year.
    If the annual demonstration of equivalency fails to show sufficient
funds in the section 172(e) fee equivalency account for the prior year,
or the preliminary determination of equivalency shows that adequate
funding may not be available in the current year, then Rule 317
requires the SCAQMD Executive Officer (EO) to submit to the Governing
Board within 90 days of the finding a back-stop rule that would require
the EO to collect and/or track adequate fees for any shortfall. The
Governing Board is required to act on the backstop rule within 120 days
of the funding inadequacy finding.
    If SCAQMD adopts a backstop rule applicable to major stationary
sources, Rule 317 states that the backstop rule would include
provisions that allow sources to request an alternate baseline period
and multi-site aggregation of baseline and emissions. Rule 317 also
states that stationary sources paying such fees in the backstop rule
shall receive a credit for annual operating fees and annual operating
emission fees paid to SCAQMD.
    EPA's TSD has more information about SCAQMD's equivalent
alternative program.

How is EPA evaluating SCAQMD's alternative program?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act). Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability requirements consistently include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620,
November 25, 1992.
    4. ``Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions for
Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency; Section 110: State Implementation
Plans,'' EPA, September 23, 1987 Memorandum.
    Also, SIP revisions must not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP)
or any other applicable requirement of the Act (CAA section 110(l)).
    SCAQMD's equivalent alternative program must also be evaluated
against section 185 of the Act, as described above under section III of
this document. EPA also developed the following guidance on
establishing baselines as allowed by section 185:
    5. Memorandum from William Harnett, Director of the Air Quality
Policy Division to the Regional Air Division Directors, entitled,
``Guidance on Establishing Emissions Baselines under Section 185 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for Severe and Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas
that Fail to Attain the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS by their Attainment Date,''
March 21, 2008.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This guidance can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/20080321_harnett_emissions_basline.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does SCAQMD's alternative program meet the evaluation criteria?

    As described below, we are proposing to find that SCAQMD's
equivalent alternative program is consistent with the relevant policy
and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP revisions, and sections
172(e) and 185 of the Act.
    One initial step in the equivalency demonstration is to determine
the benchmark for comparison, i.e., the amount of fees that would have
been collected under direct implementation of section 185. A fee is
calculated for each major stationary source whose actual emissions of
VOC or NOX exceed 80% of its baseline emissions. Rule 317
reflects the method for calculation of the fee set out in section
185(b)(1) of the Act.
    Section 185 specifies that baseline emissions are the lower of a
source's actual or allowable emissions during the attainment year.
Section 185 and EPA's March 21, 2008 baseline guidance memorandum
provide for determining baseline emissions over a longer period if a
source's emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary
significantly from year to year.
    Rule 317 defines baseline emissions for most existing stationary
sources in the South Coast Air Basin as an average of actual emissions
from two years (fiscal years 2005-2006, and 2006-2007), not to exceed
allowable emissions, and programmatically adjusted to account for
regulatory effects between 2006 through 2010 for the South Coast Air
Basin. SCAQMD's staff report for Rule 317 explains that SCAQMD selected
this two-year baseline period as more representative of typical
production and emissions because it occurred before the economic
recession that began in 2008 and that using 2010 attainment year actual
emissions as the baseline year would lock sources to an atypical low
production year. SCAQMD provided data on various indicators such as
Gross Domestic Product, regional employment, and usage of fuels and
coatings and solvents to show the recessionary effects on emissions
throughout the area.
    By letter dated December 21, 2011, SCAQMD provided source-specific
emissions data and analyses that showed that all or almost all sources
had emissions that varied from year to year. SCAQMD's letter states
that the selection of fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 as the
baseline period for all major stationary sources results in an
alternative baseline amount that is conservative but more
representative of typical emissions. SCAQMD explains that under EPA's
2008 baseline guidance, sources are allowed to choose any recent
historical 24-month consecutive period, including a period chosen by
the source. See 40 CFR 52.21(48). SCAQMD's analyses show that the
District's selected baseline period results in a lower baseline overall
than would result from a regulatory approach that would allow sources
to propose their own baseline. A lower baseline amount is conservative
because it establishes a lower threshold for calculating the assessment
of section 185 fees. EPA agrees the emissions baseline provisions of
Rule 317 are appropriate. EPA's TSD has more information on the
alternative baseline.

    Rule 317 requires SCAQMD to establish a ``section 172(e) fee
equivalency account'' that will be credited with expenditures from
qualified programs that meet the criteria outlined in section (c)(1)(A)
of the rule. One criterion is whether the expenditures, which result in
emission reductions, are surplus to the 1-hour ozone SIP. The approved
1-hour ozone SIP in the South Coast Air Basin is the 1997 Air Quality
Management Plan, as revised in 1999.\9\ The approved 1-hour ozone SIP
in the Southeast Desert Modified AQMA is the 1994 Air Quality
Management Plan.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This SIP was approved by EPA on April 10, 2000 (see 65 FR
18903).
    \10\ This SIP was approved by EPA on January 8, 1997 (see 62 FR
1150).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Surplus reductions are those that are not relied upon in the SIP,
i.e., reductions that are not required nor assumed by the SIP to
provide for RFP or attainment.\11\ At the time of rule adoption, SCAQMD
identified three preliminary lists of qualified programs--Rule 317
Attachment A, ``List of Programs Pre-funding Section 172(e) Fee
Equivalency Account,'' Attachment B in the staff report, ``List of
Potential Section 172(e) Fee Equivalent Account Funding Programs for
Post-2011,'' and Attachment C in the staff report, ``List of Potential
Future Section 172(e) Fee Equivalent Account (Credit) Programs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Surplus'' is discussed in EPA's guidance, ``Improving Air
Quality with Economic Incentive Programs'' published on January 2001
(EPA-452/R-01-001) and available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By letter dated December 21, 2011, SCAQMD updated the lists of
qualified programs, which are attached to the letter as Exhibit A
``Qualified Programs and Estimated Actual Expenditures for 2010 and
2011 Pre-funding the Section 172(e) Fee Equivalency Account'' and
Exhibit B ``Qualified Programs Providing On-Going Funding for Post-2010
to Section 172(e) Fee Equivalent Account.\12\ '' The December 201l
letter also elaborates on the bases for the conclusion that listed
programs are surplus and meet the criteria at Rule 317(c)(1)(A). EPA
has reviewed this documentation and agrees with SCAQMD that the
programs previously listed in Attachment A of Rule 317 and Attachments
B and C of the staff report and listed as Exhibits A and B to the
December 21, 2011 letter are surplus. This determination, with respect
to these programs only, addresses section (c)(1)(A)(i) of the rule,
which requires EPA's approval that the qualified programs are surplus
to the SIP. Future determinations of ``surplus'' may be necessary if
SCAQMD relies on programs or expenditures other than those identified
in Exhibits A and B of the December 21, 2011 letter to offset section
185 fee obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ When SCAQMD adopted Rule 317, the programs listed in
Attachment C were identified as ``potential'' programs for inclusion
in the 172(e) equivalency account because SCAQMD did not have
sufficient time to make a surplus determination. Subsequent to rule
adoption, SCAQMD concluded in their letter dated December 21, 2011
that the programs listed in Attachment C of the staff report are
also surplus. Exhibit B of SCAQMD's December 21, 2011 letter
included all programs that were previously included in Attachments B
and C of the February 2011 staff report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 317 requires that expenditures from qualified programs result
in direct reductions or facilitate future reductions of VOC or
NOX emissions. In contrast, section 185 of the Act requires
states to assess fees on stationary sources but does not require that
the fees be used for activities beneficial in reducing ozone formation.
We believe this requirement in Rule 317 to use the surplus funds for
reducing ozone formation will result in further progress toward
attainment.
    SCAQMD is required to demonstrate equivalency for the previous
year's fee obligation in accordance with section (c)(3) of the rule and
report the results to CARB and EPA. Equivalency is demonstrated if the
funds in the section 172(e) fee equivalency account are equal to or
greater than the CAA non-attainment (section 185) fee obligation that
would have been assessed for the prior year. The rule includes the
correct equation to demonstrate equivalency.
    If equivalency is demonstrated and there are ``unused''
expenditures that exceeded the amount of the fee obligations, those
``unused'' funds are carried forward into the following assessment
year. Since the expenditures have been determined to be surplus and
there have been no other changes to the SIP for the 1-hour ozone
standard, carrying these funds forward into the following year is
acceptable because they would remain surplus. Also, if the expenditure
occurred in a year prior to its use in an equivalency demonstration,
the emission reductions would occur earlier, which is environmentally
beneficial.
    As an added measure to demonstrate equivalency, Rule 317 also has a
forward-looking measure to estimate whether equivalency will likely be
demonstrated. SCAQMD is required to preliminarily determine if
expenditures in the section 172(e) fee equivalency account are at least
110% of the previous year's fee obligation, which serves as a surrogate
for the current year's fee obligation. If the preliminary determination
does not project equivalency in accordance with the rule, that would
trigger the requirement for SCAQMD to adopt a backstop rule in advance
of the actual equivalency demonstration. We believe this measure
provides an additional checkpoint for ensuring equivalency.
    If SCAQMD fails to either demonstrate equivalency or the
preliminary determination of equivalency does not show expenditures in
the account at least equal to 110% of the estimated fee obligation,
Rule 317 requires the EO to submit, within 90 days of the
determination, a backstop measure to the Governing Board. Rule 317 also
requires the Governing Board to act on the measure within 120 days of
the determination, to either collect and/or track adequate fees to
address the shortfall.
    Rule 317 identifies certain elements to be included in a major
stationary source backstop rule. If the backstop rule requires major
stationary sources to pay fees, Rule 317 states that the backstop rule
would allow sources to receive a credit for fees paid for operating
fees and annual operating emissions fees. Title V regulations at 40 CFR
70 require the assessment of fees sufficient to cover Title V program
costs. While any backstop rule would need to ensure that this fee
credit provision would not adversely affect funds needed to cover Title
V program costs, this issue ultimately needs to be addressed in the
rulemaking process for the backstop rule.
    Lastly, Rule 317 applies to SCAQMD and requires SCAQMD to follow
the procedures to make the equivalency demonstration and to adopt a
backstop rule to make up any shortfall if equivalency is not initially
demonstrated. These provisions, if approved into the SIP, would be
enforceable against SCAQMD.
    In conclusion, Rule 317 requires SCAQMD to demonstrate on an annual
basis, in accordance with the principles of section 172(e), that its
alternative CAA section 185 program is not less stringent than the
program prescribed by CAA section 185. EPA therefore proposes to
approve Rule 317 as satisfying the 1-hour ozone section 185 fee program
requirements. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

VII. Proposed Action

    Because EPA believes SCAQMD Rule 317 fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to approve Rule 317 as a SIP revision
under section 110(k)(3) of the Act. EPA believes that SCAQMD's
equivalent alternative program is not less stringent than the
requirements set forth in section 185 of the Act; therefore

we are proposing to approve SCAQMD's alternative program as fulfilling
the requirements of sections 182, 185 and 172(e) of the Act. If
finalized as proposed, this action would permanently terminate all CAA
Section 110(c) Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) implications
associated with our January 5, 2010 Finding of Failure to Submit a SIP
revision to satisfy section 185 requirements for the SCAQMD (75 FR
232). We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for
the next 30 days.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 4, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-447 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54025]
[DOCID:fr03se10-11]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 127

[USCG-2007-27022]
RIN 1625-AB13

Revision of LNG and LHG Waterfront Facility General Requirements

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Rule; information collection approval.

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

SUMMARY: In a final rule published May 26, 2010, the Coast Guard
amended Letter of Intent (LOI) and Waterway Suitability Assessment
(WSA) requirements for liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquefied
hazardous gas (LHG) facilities. The amendment triggered information
collection requirements affecting these facilities. The Coast Guard now
announces that the collection of information has been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1625-0049.

DATES: The collection of information requirement associated with 33 CFR
127.007 will be enforced beginning September 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
document, contact Commander Patrick Clark, CG-5222, U.S. Coast Guard,
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 26, 2010, the Coast Guard published a
final rule entitled ``Revision of LNG and LHG Waterfront Facility
General Requirements'' (75 FR 29420) amending the LOI and Letter of
Recommendation (LOR) regulations for LNG and LHG facilities. The rule
became effective on June 25, 2010.
    The revised 33 CFR 127.007 describes LOI and WSA requirements for
LNG and LHG facilities. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the preamble of the final rule stated that
the Coast Guard would not enforce the collection of information
requirements associated with 33 CFR 127.007 until the collection of
information request was approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and indicated the Coast Guard would publish a notice in the
Federal Register announcing OMB approval.
    The Coast Guard submitted the information collection request to OMB
for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. On
August 20, 2010, OMB approved the collection of information, which is
assigned OMB Control Number 1625-0049. The approval of this collection
expires on August 31, 2013. A copy of the OMB notice of action is
available in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 30, 2010.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2010-22021 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

			Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 4, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2001-9738

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Vensecar International C.A.						Date Filed:  June 1, 2005

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41301 to conduct (1)
scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a
point or points in Venezuela, on the one hand, and Miami, Florida, and
Houston, Texas, on the other hand, via the Netherlands Antilles and
Jamaica (2) scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail
from a point or points in Venezuela to San Juan, Puerto Rico, and beyond
San Juan to Spain, France, the Netherlands and Germany, and beyond to
points outside Europe; and (3) all-cargo charters pursuant to 14 C.F.R.
Part 212 of the Department’s regulations.  Vensecar proposes to
conduct the proposed services using aircraft wet leased from a duly
authorized and properly supervised U.S. or foreign air carrier for a
period of two years.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  June 3, 2004, in this
docket

Applicant representative:  Bruce Rabinovitz<PHONE_NUMBER>		DOT analyst:
Shelita Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

		DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved									Action date:  August 4, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  August 4, 2005 – August 4, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  U.S.-Venezuela
Air Transport Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X  Standard exemption conditions (attached)

X  Special conditions:  The conditions contained in the Notice of Action
Taken dated September 18, 2002, in this docket.  Vensecar may not
conduct U.S. operations with its own aircraft and crews without further
order of the Department.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that  (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the

extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 We note that Vensecar sought authority for a two-year period.  However,
as is our usual practice on conferring exemption authority in the
circumstances presented, we are limiting the term of authority to one
year.  Vensecar may, of course seek renewal of this authority in
accordance with the Department’s regulations.

 Venezuela is currently a Category 2 country under the FAA’s
International Aviation Safety Assessment Program.

05/2004


[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18202]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Indo-U.S. Regulatory Workshop

April 1, 2010.
    Commissioner Philip D. Moeller will convene a workshop at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Thursday, April 29,
2010, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in the Commission Meeting Room at the
Commission's Washington, DC headquarters, 888 First Street, NE. This
workshop will provide a forum for U.S. and Indian public utility
regulators to exchange information of mutual interest and to discuss
regulatory challenges faced by commissioners from both nations. The
FERC Commissioners, along with other invited participants, including
U.S. state commissioners, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
of India, and India's state regulatory commissions are expected to be
in attendance.
    This workshop is open to the public and all interested parties are
invited to attend. There is no registration fee to attend and the
workshop will not be webcast or transcribed.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER>
with the required accommodations.
    Questions about the workshop may be directed to Jason Stanek,
Policy Advisor, Office of Commissioner Philip Moeller, by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8061 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2800-2801]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 155

[Docket Number USCG-1998-4354]
RIN 1625-AA13 and 2115-AE88

Tank Vessel Response Plans for Hazardous Substances

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed
rulemaking entitled ``Tank Vessel Response Plans for Hazardous
Substances'' that we published on March 22, 1999. The Coast Guard is
withdrawing this rulemaking based on findings that the proposed rules
are no longer appropriate to the current state of spill response in the
chemical industry.

DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking published March 22, 1999, at
64 FR 13734, is withdrawn as of February 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available by
searching docket number USCG-1998-4354 using the Federal portal at
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of withdrawal, call or email Mr. Christopher Friese, Commercial
Vessel Safety Specialist, Office of Marine Environmental Response
Policy (CG-MER-1), Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act of 1990
CTAC Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee

II. Background

    The Clean Water Act,\1\ as amended by section 4202(a)(6) of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90),\2\ requires owners or operators of tank
vessels, offshore facilities, and onshore facilities to prepare
response plans to mitigate spills of both oils and hazardous
substances. These plans must address measures to respond, to the
maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge or a substantial
threat of such a discharge, of oil or a hazardous substance into or on
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone
of the United States. The primary purpose of requiring response plans
is to minimize the impact of a discharge of oil or hazardous substances
into the navigable waters of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5).
    \2\ Public Law 101-380, 104 Stat. 484.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 3, 1996, we published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking soliciting public input on regulations concerning response
plans for certain tank vessels and marine transportation-related
facilities (61 FR 20083), and subsequently held two public meetings on
the subject that were announced in the Federal Register (61 FR 34775).
On March 22, 1999, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
in the Federal Register entitled ``Tank Vessel Response Plans for
Hazardous Substances'' (64 FR 13734). In the NPRM, we proposed
regulations that would require response plans for certain tank vessels
operating on the navigable waters of the United States. The Coast Guard
received feedback from concerned citizens, commercial entities, and
trade associations regarding the proposed rulemaking. These comments
were made available in the docket. Since then, further analysis by the
Coast Guard and the Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC)
has shown that implementation of the proposed rules as structured in
the 1999 NPRM would not significantly increase response effectiveness
at this time.
    CTAC also identified many areas in which the NPRM may overlap with
existing local, state, and international regulatory schemes as well as
current industry practice. The International Maritime Organization's
Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan already requires all foreign
flagged vessels and U.S. vessels on international routes carrying
noxious liquid substance cargos, to develop and implement spill
response plans. U.S. flagged vessels and foreign flag vessels calling
on ports or places in the U.S. and carrying oil in bulk as cargo or
using oil as fuel for main propulsion, must comply with the Coast
Guard's Vessel Response Plan requirements.\3\ Although these
requirements address planning for oil spill response, many of these
practices may also be applied to hazardous substance responses. Vessels
also must comply with numerous state response planning requirements
when operating in state waters. The Coast Guard is concerned the
proposed rules may create redundancy with some existing rules and be
unnecessary due to industry's increased awareness and readiness since
OPA 90 was passed. Between the above-mentioned

regulations already in place for oil spill response, industry
initiatives such as the American Chemistry Council's Responsible Care
and the American Waterways Operators' Responsible Carrier programs, and
the sustainability policies of individual companies, CTAC was unable to
identify large gaps in hazardous substance spill response planning for
vessels that would be improved by the 1999 proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 33 CFR part 155, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Withdrawal

    The Coast Guard is withdrawing its proposed rulemaking in order to
better analyze the current spill response capabilities of the chemical
industry and gaps in the current regulatory regime before conducting
any further rulemaking on hazardous substance response plans for tank
vessels. While the Coast Guard remains committed to fulfilling its OPA
90 mandate, we believe the proposed rules are no longer appropriate in
their 1999 form.
    The Coast Guard has determined that withdrawing the proposed rule
is appropriate based on findings that the 1999 proposed rules are no
longer applicable to the current state of spill response in the
chemical industry. Accordingly, the Coast Guard is withdrawing the
``Tank Vessel Response Plans for Hazardous Substances'' proposed
rulemaking published March 22, 1999 (64 FR 13734).

IV. Executive Order 13771

    The withdrawal of the NPRM qualifies as a deregulatory action under
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs), which directs agencies to reduce regulation and control
regulatory costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation
issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination,
and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and
controlled through a budgeting process.'' See the OMB Memorandum titled
``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017).

     Dated: February 4, 2019.
Anthony J. Vogt,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Response
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-01593 Filed 2-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47042-47044]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19857]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0365; Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-AD; Amendment
39-19399; AD 2018-18-20]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes,
and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model
A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance
requirements and airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD
requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 23, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of October 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, Rond-Point Emile
Dewoitine No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36
96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected];
internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0365.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0365; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A300
B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R
Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series
airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on May 14, 2018 (83 FR 22222). The NPRM was prompted
by a determination that more restrictive maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM proposed to require
revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and
airworthiness limitations.
    We are issuing this AD to address safety-significant latent
failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific
failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure
condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel
systems, or other critical systems.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-600, B4-
600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F
airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and
Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for the
Airbus A310, A300-600 and A300-600ST family aeroplanes, which are
approved by EASA, are currently defined and published in the Airbus
A310 and A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents.
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR) for the Airbus A310 and
A300-600, which are approved by EASA, are specified in the Airbus
A310 and A300-600 (including A300-600ST) ALS Part 3 documents. These
instructions have been identified as mandatory for continuing
airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    EASA previously issued [EASA] AD 2013-0072 [which corresponds to
FAA AD 2015-08-06, Amendment 39-18142 (80 FR 23230, April 27, 2015)
(``AD 2015-08-06'')] to require the implementation of the
maintenance requirements and associated airworthiness limitations as
specified in Airbus A310 and A300-600 ALS Part 3 documents at
original issue.
    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new or more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations were approved
by EASA. Consequently, Airbus published Revision 01 of the A310 ALS
Part 3 and A300-600 ALS Part 3, compiling all ALS Part 3 changes
approved since original issue.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2013-0072, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of the actions specified in A310 ALS Part 3 Revision
01 and A300-600 ALS Part 3 Revision 01.

This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to
incorporate certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness
limitations. The unsafe condition involves safety-significant latent
failures that would, in combination with one or more other specific
failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure
condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection systems, fuel
systems, or other critical systems.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0365.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this final rule. We have considered the comment received. FedEx Express
indicated its support for the NPRM.

Request To Release Related ADs at the Same Time

    Airbus requested that we release this final rule at the same time
as the following related ADs to provide clarity to operators. All four
pending ADs are related to the removal of the same 15 nose landing gear
parts from ALS Part 1, on different airplane models.

     Docket No. FAA-2018-0390, Product Identifier 2017-NM-130-
AD (EASA AD 2017-0145, dated August 31, 2017).
     Docket No. FAA-2018-0364, Product Identifier 2017-NM-154-
AD (EASA AD 2017-0204, dated October 12, 2017).
     Docket No. FAA-2018-0396, Product Identifier 2017-NM-156-
AD (EASA AD 2017-0202, dated October 12, 2017).
    We agree with the request. While we cannot ensure that all four
final rules will be published on the same date, we will coordinate with
the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) and attempt to issue all four
final rules at the same time.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the change described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus SAS has issued A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision
01, dated August 28, 2017; and A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision
01, dated August 28, 2017. This service information describes mandatory
maintenance tasks that operators must perform at specified intervals.
These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane
models. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 127 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although this
figure may vary from operator to operator. In the past, we have
estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per airplane. Since
operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for
their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-operator
estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, we
estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours x $85
per work-hour).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-18-20 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-19399; Docket No. FAA-2018-0365;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-155-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 23, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2015-08-06, Amendment 39-18142 (80 FR 23230,
April 27, 2015) (``AD 2015-08-06'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-
620, and B4-622 airplanes; Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes;
Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes; Model A300 C4-605R Variant
F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324,
and -325 airplanes; certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations are
necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent safety-significant
latent failures that would, in combination with one or more other
specific failures or events, result in a hazardous or catastrophic
failure condition of avionics, hydraulic systems, fire detection
systems, fuel systems, or other critical systems.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3,
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated
August 28, 2017; or Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision
01, dated August 28, 2017; as applicable. The initial compliance
time for accomplishing the actions is at the applicable time
specified in Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01,
dated August 28, 2017; or Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR),
Revision 01, dated August 28, 2017; as applicable; or within 90 days
after the effective date of this AD; whichever occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g)
of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals,
may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(i) Terminating Action for AD 2015-08-06

    Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD
terminates all requirements of AD 2015-08-06.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include
the DOA-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0203, dated October 12, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0365.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Airbus A300-600 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part
3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated
August 28, 2017.
    (ii) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 3,
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 01, dated
August 28, 2017.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax
+33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; internet
http://www.airbus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 16, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19857 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL

OPEN MEETING

JANUARY 9 - 12, 2007

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/"  http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

OPP Docket Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0856

REVIEW OF WORKER EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT METHODS

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Conference Center - Lobby Level

One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.)

2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington,VA  22202

FIFRA SAP Chair:

Steven G. Heeringa, Ph.D.

Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research

P.O. Box 1248

Ann Arbor, MI  48106-1248

Designated Federal Official:

Myrta R. Christian, M.S.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Science Coordination and Policy

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

EPA East Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20460

Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members:

John R. Bucher, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.

Deputy Director

Environmental Toxicology Program, NIEHS

111 T. W. Alexander Drive

P.O. Box 12233, Mail Drop EC-34

Research Triangle Park, NC  27709

Janice Elaine Chambers, Ph.D.

William L. Giles Distinguished Professor

Director, Center for Environmental Health Sciences

College of Veterinary Medicine

Mississippi State University

P.O. Box 6100

Mississippi State, MS  39762-6100

Stuart Handwerger, M.D.

Professor of Pediatrics

University of Cincinnati

  Children's Hospital Medical Center

3333 Burnet Avenue

Cincinnati, OH  45229-3039

Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D.

Program Director, Statistics

American Cancer Society

Statistics & Evaluation Center

National Home Office

1599 Clifton Road, N.E., Rm. 5.406

Atlanta, GA  30329-4251

FQPA Science Review Board Members:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Henry T. Appleton, Ph.D.

National Toxicologist, U.S. Forest Service

623 South 23rd Street, # 2

Arlington, VA  22202

Dana B. Barr, Ph.D.

Chief, Pesticide Laboratory

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Environmental Health

4770 Buford Highway

Mail Stop F17

Atlanta, GA  30341

Brian Curwin, Ph.D.

Associate Research Fellow

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

4676 Columbia Pkwy

Mail Stop R-14

Cincinnati, OH  45226

Paul Y. Hamey, M.Sc.

Principal Scientist, Human Exposure Assessment

Pesticides Safety Directorate

Mallard House

3 Peasholme Green

York  YO1 7PX

UNITED KINGDOM

Cynthia J. Hines, M.S., CIH

Senior Research Industrial Hygienist

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health

4676 Columbia Pkwy

Mail Stop R-14

Cincinnati, OH  45226

Brian J. Hughes, Ph.D., M.P.H., D.A.B.T.

Toxicologist

Michigan Department of Agriculture

Pesticide and Plant Pest Management

Constitution Hall, 5th Floor

525 W. Allegan St

Lansing, MI  48909

Dallas E. Johnson, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus, Department of Statistics

Kansas State University

101 Dickens Hall

Manhattan, KS  66506-0802

David Kim, Ph.D.

Research Fellow

Harvard University

Dept. of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health

Landmark Center, 4th Floor West

401 Park Drive

Boston, MA  02215

Andrew J. Landers, Ph.D.

Director, Application Technology Group and Associate Professor

Cornell University

Department of Entomology

312 Barton Laboratory

New York State Agricultural Experiment Station

630 West North Street

Geneva, NY  14456

Chensheng Lu, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Emory University

Department of Environmental and Occupational Health

Rollins School of Public Health

Grace Crum Rollins Building, Room 226

1518 Clifton Road

Atlanta, GA  30322

Peter D.M. Macdonald, D.Phil., P.Stat.

Professor of Mathematics and Statistics

McMaster University

Department of Mathematics and Statistics

1280 Main St. West

Hamilton Hall 218

Hamilton, Ontario

CANADA  L8S 4K1

William J. Popendorf, Ph.D.

Professor

Utah State University

Department of Biology

1400 Old Main Road, Room BNR 323

Logan, UT  84322-5305

Mark G. Robson, Ph.D., M.P.H., A.T.S.

Director of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station and

Professor of Entomology

Rutgers University

104 Martin Hall

88 Lipman Drive,

New Brunswick, NJ  08901

 PAGE

 PAGE   4