The average incremental cost per CSO permittee is about $2,000 per year
and the average incremental cost per state NPDES authority is about
$2,500.
    EPA 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. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this proposed rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to OIRA<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than February 13, 2017. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comment in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
governmental jurisdictions. The Agency has determined that 152 (83%) of
the 182 communities discharging CSOs to the Great Lakes Basin are
governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 50,000 and
thus can be classified as small entities and may experience an impact
of between 0% and 0.75% of annual revenue. Details of this analysis are
presented in the Economic Analysis for the proposed rule (see
``Economic Analysis for the Proposed Public Notification of CSOs to the
Great Lakes Rule,'' EPA, 2016).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. EPA has conducted an
economic analysis examining the potential burden to state, tribal and
local governments. Details of this analysis are presented in the
economic analysis for the proposed rule (see ``Economic Analysis for
the Proposed Public Notification of CSOs in the Great Lakes Rule,''
EPA, 2016). EPA estimates that the costs of rule to states, tribes and
local governments will be well below $100 million per year. In
addition, EPA compared the estimated annualized cost of the rule and
revenue estimates for small local governments using four estimates of
revenue data. The annualized compliance cost as a percentage of annual
government revenues were all well below 1% for all four revenue
estimate methods. EPA concludes that the impact of the rule is very
unlikely to reach or exceed 1% of small local government revenue.
    EPA has provided small local governments an opportunity to share
their views regarding potential new public notification requirements
for CSO discharges in the Great Lakes Basin as part of the September
14, 2016 listening session and August 1, 2016 request for stakeholder
input discussed in Section I.K of this notice. EPA is also encouraging
the Great Lake states to notify small local governments affected by
this rule about the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    The rule proposes a requirement for CSO permittees to notify the
public of CSO discharges. This requirement includes the development of
a public notification plan and the release of an annual notice that
includes monitoring data. The incremental impact to state permitting
authorities is estimated to be $2,503.71 annually per state. The
incremental impact to local permittees may range from a total of $1,000
to $3,000 annually per CSO permittee, depending on the number of CSO
events and preparation time for the annual notice. Details of this
analysis are presented in ``Economic Analysis for the Public
Notification Requirements for Combined Sewer Overflow discharges within
the Great Lakes Basin,'' which is available in the docket for the
proposed rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0376 http://www.regulations.gov).
    Keeping with the spirit of E.O. 13132 and consistent with EPA's
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA met with state and local officials throughout the
process of developing the proposed rule and received feedback on how
potential new regulatory requirements would affect them. EPA engaged in
extensive outreach via conference calls to affected states to enable
officials of affected state to have meaningful and timely input into
the development of the proposed rule. EPA also held a public listening
session and solicited written comments from the public and impacted
stakeholder groups, including affected municipalities, to inform the
development of the public notice proposed requirements. See Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0376 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175 since it does not have a direct substantial
impact on one or more federally recognized tribes. No tribal
governments are authorized NPDES permitting authorities and none of the
combined sewer systems subject to this rule are located on Indian
nation lands.
    The proposed rule would address the way in which municipalities
share information with the public, public health departments, and
potentially impacted communities (including Indian tribes) about CSOs
in the Great Lakes Basin. EPA therefore evaluated the proximity of CSSs
that would be subject to the proposed rule in relation to Indian lands.
EPA identified six CSO permittees with the potential to affect waters
near four Indian nations in New York State:
     Seneca Nation of Indians (SNI): The Dunkirk WWTP is
located south of the Cattaraugus Reservation. The Buffalo Sewer
Authority and Niagara Falls WWTP are located close to SNI lands within
the city of Niagara Falls, NY and Buffalo, NY (where the Seneca casinos
are located).
     Tuscarora Nation (TN): The Tuscarora Nation lands are
located directly between the Niagara Falls WWTP and Lockport WWTP but
not on the Niagara River or Eighteen Mile Creek.
     Tonawanda Seneca Nation (TSN): The Medina WWTP is located
10 miles north of the Tonawanda Seneca Nation lands.
     St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT): Any of the three WWTP
plants along the St. Lawrence River would be of concern to the Mohawks
at Akwesasne. SRMT is directly impacted by the Massena WWTP as the St.
Lawrence River goes directly thru the heart of Akwesasne, the St. Regis
Mohawk Tribe's reservation lands.
    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes,\26\ EPA conducted outreach to tribal officials
during the development of this action. EPA contacted the above
mentioned tribes through outreach conducted by EPA's Office of
Environmental Justice to ensure they were aware of the public listening
session held regarding this rulemaking, and the associated opportunity
to provide written comments to the Agency. In addition, the proposed
rule would require Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees to consult with
potentially affected Indian Tribes whose waters may be affected by a
CSO discharge prior to submitting the public notification plan. This
requirement would ensure that needs of tribes using potentially
affected waters are considered in terms of timing of notification, the
type of information that is provided, and the means by which public
notification is communicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/cons-and-coord-with-indian-tribes-policy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. The proposed rule would, in some cases, increase public
awareness of CSO discharges to the Great Lakes Basin, including
information about public use areas such as beaches that may be impacted
by contaminated CSO discharges, and by doing so could decrease health
risks for children, infants, and adults.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it
does not significantly affect energy supply, distribution or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    EPA determined that the human health or environmental risk
addressed by this action would not have potential disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority,
low-income, or indigenous populations. This action affects the way in
which Great Lakes Basin CSO permittees communicate information
regarding CSO discharges to the public. It does not change any current
human health or environmental risk standards.
    However, because the proposed rule would address the way in which
information about CSO discharges is communicated to the public, EPA did
reach out to environmental justice organizations to specifically
solicit input on what may be the best approaches to reaching
environmental justice communities with this information. Prior to the
public listening session on September 14, 2016, EPA contacted over 800
environmental justice stakeholders through the Office of Environmental
Justice Listserv, to ensure they were aware of the listening session
and the opportunity to provide written input to the Agency through the
public docket.
    In addition, the proposed rule would require the Great Lakes Basin
CSO permittee to consult with local public health departments and
potentially affected public entities when developing the public
notification plan. These consultations may alert the Great Lakes Basin
CSO permittee to specific environmental justice community
considerations regarding the best ways to effectively communicate this
information. EPA requests comment on this requirement and whether it is
expected to sufficiently account for the needs of environmental justice
communities that may utilize waters that could be affect by a CSO
discharge to the Great Lakes Basin.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 122

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Combined sewer overflow, Confidential business information, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution
control, Water pollution, public notification, reporting.

40 CFR Part 123

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Combined sewer overflow, Hazardous substances, Indians--lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control, Water pollution, public
notification, reporting.

    Dated: December 16, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 122 as follows:

PART 122--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

0
1. The authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

0
2. Amend Sec.  122.2 by adding the definitions for ``Combined sewer
overflow,'' ``Combined sewer system,'' and ``Great Lakes Basin'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

 Sec.  122.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Combined sewer overflow (CSO) means a discharge from a combined
sewer system (CSS) at a point prior to the Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (POTW) Treatment Plant (defined at Sec.  403.3(r) of this
chapter).
    Combined sewer system (CSS) means a wastewater collection system
owned by a State or municipality (as defined by section 502(4) of the
CWA) which conveys sanitary wastewaters (domestic, commercial and
industrial wastewaters) and storm water through a single-pipe system to
a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) Treatment Plant (as defined at
Sec.  403.3(r) of this chapter).
* * * * *
    Great Lakes Basin means the waters defined as ``Great Lakes'' and
``Great Lakes System'' as those terms are defined in Sec.  section
132.2 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  122.21 by adding paragraph (j)(8)(iii).

Sec.  122.21  Application for a permit (applicable to State programs,
see Sec.  123.25).

* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iii) Public Notification Plan for CSO discharges to the Great
Lakes Basin. Each applicant that discharges a combined sewer overflow
to the Great Lakes Basin as defined in Sec.  122.2 must submit a public
notification plan developed in accordance with Sec.  122.38 as part of
its permit application. The public notification plan shall describe any
significant updates to the plan that may have occurred since the last
plan submission.
* * * * *
0
4. Add Sec.  122.38 to read as follows:

Sec.  122.38  Public Notification requirements for CSO discharges to
the Great Lakes Basin.

    (a) All permittees authorized to discharge a combined sewer
overflow (CSO) to the Great Lakes Basin (``Great Lakes Basin CSO
permittee'') must provide public notification of CSO discharges as
described in this paragraph after [date 6 months after publication of
final rule]. Public notification shall consist of:
    (1) Signage. (i) The Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee shall ensure
that there is adequate signage where signage is feasible at CSO
outfalls and potentially impacted public access areas. At a minimum,
signs shall include:
    (A) The name of the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee,
    (B) A description of the discharge (e.g., untreated human sewage,
treated wastewater) and notice that sewage may be present in the water,
and
    (C) The Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee contact information,
including a telephone number, NPDES permit number and outfall number as
identified in the NPDES permit.
    (ii) The Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee shall perform periodic
maintenance of signs to ensure that they are legible, visible and
factually correct.
    (iii) Where a permittee has before [date 6 months after publication
of final rule] installed a sign at a CSO outfall or potentially
impacted public access area that is consistent with state requirements,
the sign is not required to meet the minimum requirements specified in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section until the sign is replaced or
reset.
    (2) Notification of Local Public Health Department and other
potentially affected public entities. (i) As soon as possible, but no
later than four (4) hours after becoming aware by monitoring, modeling
or other means that a CSO discharge has occurred, the Great Lakes Basin
CSO permittee shall provide initial notice of the CSO discharge to the
local public health department (or if there is no local health
department, to the state health department), any potentially affected
public entities (such as municipalities, public drinking water
utilities, state and county parks and recreation departments), and
Indian Tribes whose waters may be affected. Such initial notice shall,
at a minimum, include the following information:
    (A) The water body that received the discharge(s);
    (B) The location of the discharge(s). Where CSO discharges from the
same system occur at multiple locations at the same time, the Great
Lakes Basin CSO permittee may provide a description of the area in the
waterbody where discharges are occurring and identification of the
public access areas potentially impacted by the discharge, and the
permittee is not required to identify the specific location of each
discharge;
    (C) The date(s) and time(s) that the discharge(s) commenced or the
time the permittee became aware of the discharge(s) or when discharges
are expected to occur;
    (D) Whether, at the time of the notification, the discharge(s) is
continuing or has ended. If the discharge(s) has ended, the approximate
time that the discharge ended; and
    (E) A point of contact for the CSO permittee.
    (ii) Within twenty-four (24) hours after becoming aware by
monitoring, modeling or other means that the CSO discharge(s) has
ended, the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee shall provide the following
supplemental information to the public health department and affected
public entities and Indian Tribes receiving the initial notice under
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section unless the information had been
provided in an earlier notice:
    (A) The measured or estimated volume of the discharge(s). Where CSO
discharges from the same system occur at multiple locations at the same
time, the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee may provide an estimate of
the cumulative volume discharged to a given waterbody; and
    (B) The approximate time that the discharge(s) ended.
    (3) Notification of the Public. (i) As soon as possible, but no
later than four (4) hours after becoming aware by monitoring, modeling
or other means that a CSO discharge has occurred, the Great Lakes Basin
CSO permittee shall provide public notification of CSO discharges. The
Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee shall provide public notification of
CSO discharges electronically, such as by text, email, social media
alerts to subscribers or by posting a notice on its public access Web
site, and by other appropriate means (e.g. newspaper, radio,
television).
    (ii) At a minimum, the notice shall include:
    (A) The water body that received the discharge(s);
    (B) The location of the discharge(s). Where CSO discharges from the
same system occur at multiple locations at the same time, the Great
Lakes Basin CSO permittee may provide a description of the area in the
waterbody where discharges are occurring and identification of the
public access areas potentially impacted by the discharge, and the
permittee is not required to identify the specific location of each
discharge;
    (C) The date(s) and time(s) that the discharge(s) commenced or the
time the permittee became aware of the discharge(s); and
    (D) Whether, at the time of the notification, the discharge(s) is
continuing or has ended. If the discharge(s) has ended, the approximate
time that the discharge(s) ended.
    (iii) Within twenty-four (24) hours after becoming aware by
monitoring,

modeling or other means that the CSO discharge(s) has ended, the Great
Lakes Basin CSO permittee shall update the electronic notice with the
following information unless the information had been provided in an
earlier notice:
    (A) The measured or estimated volume of the discharge(s). Where CSO
discharges from the same system occur at multiple locations at the same
time, the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee may provide an estimate of
the cumulative volume discharged to a given waterbody; and
    (B) The approximate time that the discharge(s) ended, unless this
information was provided in an earlier notice.
    (b) Annual Notice. By May 1 of each calendar year (or an earlier
date specified by the Director), all permittees authorized to discharge
a CSO to the Great Lakes Basin shall make available to the public an
annual notice describing the CSO discharges from its outfall(s) that
occurred in the previous calendar year and shall provide the Director
with notice of how the annual notice is available. Permittees that are
owners or operators of a satellite collection system with one or more
CSO outfalls shall provide the annual notice to the public and a copy
of the annual notice to the operator of the POTW treatment plant
providing treatment for its wastewater. At a minimum, the annual notice
shall include:
    (1) Information on the availability of the permittee's public
notification plan and a summary of significant modifications to the
plan that were made in the past year;
    (2) A description of the location, treatment provided and receiving
water for each CSO outfall;
    (3) The date, location, duration, and volume of each wet weather
CSO discharge that occurred during the past calendar year. Where CSO
discharges from the same system occur at multiple locations at the same
time, the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee may provide an estimate of
the cumulative volume discharged to a given waterbody;
    (4) The date, location, duration, and volume of each dry weather
CSO discharge that occurred during the past calendar year;
    (5) A summary of available monitoring data for CSO discharges from
the past calendar year;
    (6) A description of any public access areas impacted by each CSO
discharge;
    (7) Representative rain gauge data in total inches to the nearest
0.1 inch that resulted in a CSO discharge;
    (8) A point of contact; and
    (9) A concise summary of implementation of the nine minimum
controls and the status of implementation of the long-term CSO control
plan (or other plans to reduce or prevent CSO discharges), including:
    (i) A description of key milestones remaining to complete
implementation of the plan; and
    (ii) A description of the average annual number of CSO discharges
anticipated after implementation of the long-term control plan (or
other plan relevant to reduction of CSO overflows) is completed.
    (c) Reporting. By May 1 of each calendar year (or an earlier date
specified by the Director), all permittees authorized to discharge a
CSO to the Great Lakes Basin shall electronically report any CSO
discharge that occurred during the past calendar year that has not been
previously reported pursuant to a permit requirement. to the initial
recipient, as defined in 40 CFR 127.2(b), in compliance with 40 CFR 127
using the discharge monitoring report (NPDES Data Group 3, Appendix A
to 40 CFR 127) or the Sewer Overflow Event Report (NPDES Data Group 9,
Appendix A to 40 CFR 127).
    (d) Public Notification Plan. The Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee
shall develop a public notification plan that describes how the Great
Lakes Basin CSO permittee will ensure that the public receives adequate
notification of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts. The Great Lakes Basin
CSO permittee must provide notice of the availability of the plan on
the permittee's Web site (if it has a Web site), and periodically
provide information in bill mailings and by other appropriate means on
how to view the notification plan. The Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee
must submit its public notification plan to the Director by [date 6
months after publication of a final rule] and as part of a permit
application under Sec.  122.21(j)(8)(iii). The plan must:
    (1) Identify the location of signs required under paragraph (a)(1)
of this section and the location of any CSO outfall where a sign is not
feasible. Where a sign has not been provided at an outfall, the plan
shall explain why a sign at that location is not feasible.
    (2) Describe the message used on signs required under paragraph
(a)(1) of this section;
    (3) Describe protocols for maintaining signage (e.g., inspections
at set intervals);
    (4) Identify (with points of contact) the municipalities, public
drinking water supplies, public parks with water access, Indian
Tribe(s), and describe other sensitive area(s) identified in the
permittee's long-term CSO control plan, that may be affected by the
permittee's CSO discharges;
    (5) Summarize significant comments and recommendations raised by
the local public health department under paragraph (e) of this section;
    (6) Identify other affected public entities and Indian Tribes whose
waters may be affected by a CSO discharge that were contacted under
paragraph (e) of this section and provide a summary of their
significant comments and recommendations;
    (7) Describe protocols for the initial and supplemental notice to
public health departments and other public entities;
    (8) Describe protocols for the initial and supplemental notice to
the public;
    (9) Describe, for each outfall, how the volume and duration of CSO
discharges shall be either measured or estimated for the purposes of
complying with paragraphs (a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(3)(C)(i), (b)(2), and
(b)(3) of this section. If the Great Lakes Basin CSO permittee intends
to use a model to estimate discharge volumes and durations, the plan
must summarize the model and describe how the model was or will be
calibrated. CSO permittees that are a municipality or sewer district
with a population of 75,000 or more must calibrate their model at least
once every 5 years; and
    (10) Describe protocols for making the annual notice described in
paragraph (b) of this section available to the public and to the
Director.
    (e) Prior to submitting the public notification plan, or
resubmitting under Sec.  122.21(j)(8)(iii), the Great Lakes Basin CSO
permittee must:
    (1) Seek input from the local public health department (or if there
is no local health department, the state health department), to:
    (i) Develop recommended protocols for providing notification of CSO
discharges to the public health department. The protocols will specify
which CSO discharges are subject to notification, the means of
notification, timing of notification and other relevant factors; and
    (ii) Develop recommendations for providing notice to the general
public of CSO discharges electronically and by other appropriate means.
    (2) Seek input from other potentially affected public entities and
Indian Tribes whose waters may be affected by a CSO discharge.
    (3) Consider the recommendations of the public health department
and other potentially affected entities in developing protocols in its
public notification plan for providing notification of CSO discharges
to the public health department and

potentially affected public entities and Indian Tribes.
    (f) The Director may extend the compliance dates in paragraphs (a),
(b), and (d) of this section for individual communities if the Director
determines the community needs additional time to comply in order to
avoid undue economic hardship. Where the Director extends the
compliance date of any of these requirements for a community, the
Director shall notify the Regional Administrator of the extension and
the reason for the extension. The Director shall post on its Web site a
notice that includes the name of the community and the new compliance
date(s). The notice shall remain on the Director's Web site until the
new compliance date.
0
5. Amend Sec.  122.42 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  122.42  Additional conditions applicable to specified categories
of NPDES permits (applicable to State NPDES programs, see Sec.
123.25).

* * * * *
    (f) Public Notification requirements for CSO discharges to the
Great Lakes Basin. Any permit issued for combined sewer overflow (CSO)
discharges to the Great Lakes Basin must:
    (1) Require implementation of the public notification requirements
in Sec.  122.38(a);
    (2) Specify the information that must be included on outfall
signage, which, at a minimum, must include those elements in Sec.
122.38(a)(1)(i);
    (3) Specify outfalls and public access areas where signs are
required pursuant to Sec.  122.38(a)(1)(i);
    (4) Specify the timing and minimum information required for
providing initial and supplemental notification to:
    (i) Local public health department and other potentially affected
entities under Sec.  122.38(a)(2); and
    (ii) The public under Sec.  122.38(a)(3).
    (5) Specify the location of CSO discharges that must be monitored
for volume and discharge duration and the location of CSO discharges
where CSO volume and duration may be estimated;
    (6) Require submittal of an annual notice in accordance with Sec.
122.38(b);
    (7) Specify protocols for making the annual notice under Sec.
122.38(b) available to the public; and
    (8) Require all CSO discharges be electronically reported in a
discharge monitoring report or a sewer overflow event report pursuant
to 40 CFR 122.41(l)(6) or (7).
* * * * *

PART 123--STATE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

0
6. The authority for part 123 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

0
7. Amend Sec.  123.25 by revising paragraph (a)(46) and adding
paragraph (a)(47) to read as follows:

Sec.  123.25  Requirements for permitting.

    (a) * * *
    (46) For states that wish to receive electronic documents, 40 CFR
part 3--(Electronic Reporting); and
    (47) For a Great Lakes State, Sec.  122.38.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-31745 Filed 1-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 16384]
[DOCID:fr10ap09-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-22-000]

Enogex, LLC; Notice of Filing

April 6, 2009.
    Take notice that on March 27, 2009, Enogex, LLC (Enogex) filed
pursuant to section 284.123(b)(2) of the Commission's regulations, a
petition requesting approval of rates pursuant to section 311(a)(2) of
the Natural Gas Policy Act. Enogex is proposing to implement a new firm
section 311 transportation service on its East Zone of its transmission
system at a rate of $0.1655 per MMBtu. Additionally, Enogex proposes a
rate of $0.1523 per MMBtu for interruptible service furnished in the
East Zone and a rate of $0.1273 per MMBtu for interruptible service
furnished in the West Zone.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 14, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-8234 Filed 4-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 19060-19061]
[DOCID:fr08ap08-41]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP08-29-000]

Vector Pipeline L.P.; Notice of Availability of the Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Athens Compressor Expansion Project

March 31, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the
natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Vector Pipeline L.P.
(Vector) in the above-referenced docket.
    The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the
proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of Vector's proposed Athens Compressor
Expansion (ACE) Project. The ACE Project would involve construction of
a new 15,000-horsepower compressor station along Vector's existing
pipeline system in Calhoun County, Michigan and modifications at the
existing Springville and Highland Compressor Stations, which are
located along Vector's pipeline system in LaPorte County, Indiana and
Oakland County, Michigan, respectively. The ACE Project would increase
mainline capacity by approximately 105,000 dekatherms per day.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited
number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8371.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to Federal, State, and local
agencies, public interest groups, interested individuals, newspapers,
and parties to this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure
consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is
important that we receive your comments before the date specified
below.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding.
See 18 Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to ``Documents and Filings'' and
``eFiling.'' eFiling is a file attachment process and requires that you
prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on
paper, and save it to a file on your hard drive. New eFiling users must
first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.''
You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This
filing is considered a ``Comment on Filing.'' In addition, there is a
``Quick Comment'' option available, which is an easy method for
interested persons to submit text only comments on a project. The
Quick-Comment User Guide can be viewed at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/efiling/quick-comment-guide.pdf. Quick Comment does not require
a FERC eRegistration account; however, you will be asked to provide a
valid e-mail address. All comments submitted under either eFiling or
the Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the
specified docket.
    If you are filing written comments, please carefully follow these
instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and
properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your comments to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
     Reference Docket No. CP08-29-000;
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the
Gas Branch 1, PJ-11.1; and
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC, on or before April 30, 2008.
    Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to
make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to
become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene
pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.
Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to

the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-7288 Filed 4-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28655-28656]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13149]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0063; FRL-9961-08-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Polyether Polyols Production
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Polyether Polyols, to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through May 31, 2017.
Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on
May 3, 2016 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently-valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0063, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents for this renewal ICR,
NESHAP for Polyether Polyols (40 CFR part 63, subpart PPP), (EPA ICR
No. 1811.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0415), which explain in detail the
information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public
docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General
Provisions of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), and any changes
or additions to the General Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPP. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit
initial notification, performance tests, and periodic reports and
results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of
the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in
the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required
semiannually.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Polyether polyols production
facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart PPP).
    Estimated number of respondents: 23 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 3,710 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $383,000 (per year), and does not include any
annualized capital/startup or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a small increase in labor hours
in this ICR compared to the previous ICR. This is due to the removal of
affirmative defense and the addition of a one-hour estimate associated
with re-familiarization of the regulatory requirements for each
regulated source. There is also a decrease in the total capital and O&M
costs. Since all existing sources are expected to be compliant with any
initial requirements

of the 2014 rule, the estimated capital cost has decreased since the
last ICR.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-13149 Filed 6-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64402-64403]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25182]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0384; FRL-9901-77-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California;
South Coast; Contingency Measures for 1997 PM2.5 Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by California to address Clean Air Act (CAA) contingency
measure requirements for the 1997 annual and 24-hour national ambient
air quality standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (South
Coast). Approval of this SIP revision terminates the sanctions clocks
and a federal implementation plan (FIP) clock that were triggered by
EPA's partial disapproval of a related SIP submission on November 5,
2011.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may inspect the supporting information for this action,
identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2013-0384, by one of the
following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking portal, http://www.regulations.gov, please
follow the online instructions; or,
    2. Visit our regional office at, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., voluminous
records, large maps, copyrighted material), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., Confidential Business
Information). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed
directly below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3959<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
II. Public Comment and EPA Response
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

    On June 24, 2013 (78 FR 37741), EPA proposed to approve the ``South
Coast Air Quality Management District Proposed Contingency Measures for
the 2007 PM2.5 SIP'' (dated October 2011), which the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted on November 14, 2011
and supplemented on April 24, 2013 (collectively the ``Contingency
Measures SIP''). EPA proposed to approve the Contingency Measures SIP
as satisfying the attainment contingency measure requirement in CAA
section 172(c)(9) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and to conclude
that the reasonable further progress (RFP) contingency measure
requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 2012 milestone year is
moot because the South Coast area has achieved the emission reduction
benchmarks for the 2012 RFP year. Our June 24, 2013 proposed rule
provides the rationale for this action.

II. Public Comment and EPA Response

    EPA provided a 30-day public comment period on our proposed action.
The comment period ended on July 24, 2013. We received one public
comment and respond to that comment below.
    Comment: A private citizen asserted that there has been no attempt
to address methane outgassing and the many oil fields in the South
Coast area. The commenter also stated that train maintenance, promotion
of bicycles and rail, automobile and truck lane reductions, digital
signage, outdoor wood burning and landfills are not being adequately
addressed, that health risk assessments should be required, that there
are cancer clusters in the area, and that ``the political handling of
[the] air quality problem does not change the quality of life and
health of'' South Coast area residents.
    Response: The commenter's submission contained only general
observations and conclusions that are outside the scope of EPA's
rulemaking action. While expressing a broad range of environmental
concerns, the commenter failed to identify any specific issue relevant
to EPA's proposed action on the Contingency Measures SIP, and did not
address the basis for EPA's approval of the South Coast's contingency
measures. To the extent the commenter intended to encourage additional
review and evaluation of air pollution sources in the South Coast area,
and additional potential transportation and control measures that may
reduce air pollution, EPA encourages the commenter to participate in
the regulatory processes carried out by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD), CARB, and other State/local agencies
involved in the development of air quality management plans for the
South Coast area. EPA finds no basis in the comment to change its views
on the approvability of the specific contingency measures at issue in
this rulemaking.

III. EPA's Final Action

    We are finalizing our proposal to conclude that the Contingency
Measures SIP submitted by CARB on November 14, 2011, as supplemented on
April 24, 2013, satisfies the attainment contingency measure
requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in the South Coast nonattainment area. We therefore fully approve
this submission into the California SIP. This final action is based in
part on EPA's final rule approving SCAQMD Rule 444 and Rule 445, which
was signed by Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX, on
August 22, 2013. See ``Revisions to Implementation Plan, South Coast
Air Quality Management District'' Final Rule, signed August 22, 2013
(pre-publication copy).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's proposal to approve the Contingency Measures SIP
relied in part on a simultaneous proposal to approve Rule 444 and
Rule 445, which we stated would provide SIP-creditable
PM2.5 emission reductions upon final EPA approval of
these rules into the SIP. See 78 FR at 37745-37746 and 37751, Table
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also finalizing our proposal to conclude that the RFP
contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 2012
milestone year is moot as applied to the South Coast because the area
achieved its SIP-approved emission reduction benchmarks for the 2012
RFP year.
    Today's final approval corrects deficiencies that were the basis
for EPA's partial disapproval of the South Coast PM2.5 SIP
on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69928) and therefore terminates the CAA
section 179(b) sanctions clocks triggered by that action and the
obligation on EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years of that action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the 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 action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. For that reason, this 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because it does not 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 30, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 25, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

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 F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(432) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (432) The following plan was submitted on November 14, 2011, by the
Governor's Designee.
    (i) [Reserved].
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) South Coast Air Quality Management District Proposed
Contingency Measures for the 2007 PM2.5 SIP (dated October
2011) (``Contingency Measures SIP''), adopted October 7, 2011.
    (2) SCAQMD Resolution No. 11-24, dated October 7, 2011, adopting
the Contingency Measures SIP.
    (3) Letter dated April 24, 2013 from Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive
Officer, SCAQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region
9, Re: ``Update of the 2012 RFP Emissions and 2015 Reductions from
Contingency Measures for the 2007 Annual PM2.5 Air Quality
Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin,'' including attachments.
    (B) State of California Air Resources Board.
    (1) CARB Executive Order S-11-023, dated November 14, 2011,
adopting the Contingency Measures SIP.

[FR Doc. 2013-25182 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P