[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 66 (Thursday, April 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18227-18232]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07223]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0148; FRL-10022-15-Region 9]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
California; San Diego County Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reclassification
to Severe

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request from the
State of California to reclassify the San Diego County ozone
nonattainment area from ``Serious'' to ``Severe'' for the 2008 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and from ``Moderate'' to
``Severe'' for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Following consultation with
tribes, the EPA is also proposing to reclassify in the same manner as
state land, reservation areas of Indian country and any other area of
Indian country within it where the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that
the tribe has jurisdiction located within the boundaries of the San
Diego County ozone nonattainment area. Upon final reclassification of
the San Diego County ozone nonattainment area as a Severe area for the
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, the applicable attainment dates would be as
expeditious as practicable but no later than July 20, 2027, for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, and August 3, 2033, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. With
respect to Severe state implementation plan (SIP) element submittal
dates that have passed, the EPA is proposing to establish a deadline of
no later than 12 months from the effective date of reclassification for
submittal of revisions to the San Diego County portion of the
California SIP to meet additional requirements for Severe ozone
nonattainment areas to the extent that such revisions have not already
been submitted.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by May 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R09-OAR-2021-0148, at http://www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, or if you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T. Khoi Nguyen, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 947-4120, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Reclassification as Severe Nonattainment and Severe Area SIP
Requirements
    A. Reclassification as Severe and Applicable Attainment Dates
    B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Severe Ozone Nonattainment
Area Plans
II. Reclassification of Areas of Indian Country
III. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Reclassification as Severe Nonattainment and Severe Area SIP
Requirements

A. Reclassification as Severe and Applicable Attainment Dates

    Effective July 20, 2012, the EPA designated and classified the San
Diego County nonattainment area in California under the CAA as
``Marginal'' nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ The San Diego
County ozone nonattainment area included 18 tribal reservations located
within the geographic boundary of the county. Our classification of San
Diego County as a Marginal ozone nonattainment area established a
requirement that the area attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously
as practicable, but no later than three years from the date of
designation as nonattainment, i.e., July 20, 2015. In May 2016, the EPA
determined that San Diego County failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS
by the Marginal attainment date and

reclassified the area from Marginal to Moderate, with an attainment
date of not later than July 20, 2018.\2\ In August 2019, the EPA
determined that San Diego County failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS
by the Moderate attainment date, and reclassified the area from
Moderate to Serious, with an attainment date of not later than July 20,
2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). The 2008 ozone NAAQS is 0.075
parts per million (ppm), daily maximum 8-hour average. The 2008
ozone NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when
the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour
average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. See
40 CFR 50.15.
    \2\ 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016).
    \3\ 84 FR 44238 (August 23, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, effective August 3, 2018, the EPA designated and
classified the San Diego County nonattainment area in California under
the CAA as ``Moderate'' nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\4\
Consistent with the area designation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the San
Diego County ozone nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS included
18 tribal reservations located within the geographic boundary of the
county. Our classification of San Diego County as a Moderate ozone
nonattainment area established a requirement that the area attain the
2015 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than six
years from the date of designation as nonattainment, i.e., August 3,
2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). The 2015 ozone NAAQS is 0.070
ppm, daily maximum 8-hour average. The 2015 ozone NAAQS is met at an
ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.070 ppm. See 40 CFR 50.19.5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 12, 2021, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted a request to the EPA seeking a voluntary reclassification of
San Diego County.\5\ CARB requested that the EPA reclassify San Diego
County from Serious to Severe for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and from
Moderate to Severe for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\6\ The State requested
reclassification to Severe, rather than Serious, based on air quality
modeling results that demonstrate that the most expeditious attainment
dates for ozone corresponded with the attainment dates for areas
classified as Severe for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter dated January 8, 2021, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX (submitted electronically January 12, 2021).
    \6\ Throughout this document, we use ``Severe'' as the
terminology for the proposed classification, referring to Severe
areas that have 15 years to attain the ozone standards. If the
proposed action is finalized, the ozone area designation tables in
40 CFR part 81 will specify ``Severe-15'' to distinguish the
classification from ``Severe-17''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are proposing to approve CARB's reclassification request under
section 181(b)(3) of the Act, which provides for ``voluntary
reclassification'' because the plain language of section 181(b)(3)
mandates that we approve such a request. Upon final reclassification,
the applicable attainment dates will be as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than fifteen years from the date of
designation as nonattainment, i.e., July 20, 2027 for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and August 3, 2033 for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

B. Clean Air Act Requirements for Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area Plans

1. Severe Area Plan Requirements
    Under CAA section 182(d), an attainment plan for a Severe area must
include the elements required for a Serious area as well as additional
plan elements for a Severe area. Where applicable, the plan elements
should reflect the reduction of the major source threshold under
section 182(d) to 25 tons per year for a Severe area. The requirements
for a Severe area plan include, but are not limited to: (1) Base year
emissions inventory (CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1)); (2) an
emissions statement rule (CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)); (3) New Source
Review (NSR) (CAA sections 172(c)(5), 173, 182(a)(2)(C), 182(d) and
182(d)(2)); (4) additional reasonably available control technology
(RACT) rules to address sources subject to the lower Severe area major
source threshold (CAA section 182(b)(2)); (5) reasonably available
control measures (RACM) (CAA section 172(c)(1)); (6) attainment
demonstration (CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 182(c)(2)(A)); (7) a
reasonable further progress (RFP) demonstration showing ozone precursor
reductions of at least 3 percent per year until the attainment date
(CAA sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1), 182(c)(2)(B)); (8) contingency
measures (CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)); (9) vehicle inspection
& maintenance (CAA section 182(c)(3)); (10) Clean Fuels Fleet program
(CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246); (11) enhanced ambient air
monitoring (CAA section 182(c)(1)); (12) transportation control
strategies and measures to offset emissions increases from vehicle
miles traveled (CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)); and (13) CAA Section 185 Fee
Program (CAA sections 182(d)(3) and 185).
    As noted previously, on January 12, 2021, CARB submitted a request
to the EPA seeking a voluntary reclassification of the San Diego County
ozone nonattainment area from Serious to Severe for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and from Moderate to Severe for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. In addition
to this request, the State also submitted, as a revision to the San
Diego County portion of the California SIP, the plan adopted by the San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD or ``District'')
intended to address all the applicable requirements for the 2008 and
2015 ozone NAAQS for the San Diego County ozone nonattainment area as a
Severe ozone nonattainment area, other than RACT and the Section 185
Fee Program.\7\ On December 29, 2020, CARB submitted a SIP revision
intended to address the Severe Area RACT requirement for the San Diego
County ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ SDCAPCD, ``2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County'' (October 2020).
    \8\ Letter dated December 28, 2020, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to John W. Busterud, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX (submitted electronically December 29,
2020), with attachments, including SDCAPCD's 2020 Reasonably
Available Control Technology Demonstration for the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County (October 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have reviewed the two SIP revisions submitted by CARB to address
the Severe area requirements for the San Diego County ozone
nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS (other than the
Section 185 Fee Program) and find that the revisions address the
applicable requirements.\9\ However, we have not yet determined that
either SIP submittal is complete under CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), and
thus, we are proposing a schedule for submittal (as described in detail
below) of SIP revisions to address applicable SIP requirements if, and
to the extent, we ultimately find the two SIP revisions incomplete. For
the Section 185 Fee Program in San Diego County, if the area is
reclassified to Severe, the applicable SIP submittal deadline would be
July 20, 2022, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and August 3, 2028, for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See EPA Region IX, Memorandum to File EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0148,
dated March 19, 2021 for our review of the San Diego County 2020
ozone plan.
    \10\ See 40 CFR 51.1117 and 40 CFR 51.1317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For areas initially designated Severe, the CAA and the EPA's ozone
SIP Requirements Rules (SRR) for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS \11\
generally provide, depending on the element, up to four years from the
date of designation to submit the required SIP elements to the EPA. The
statutory deadline for all SIP submissions for areas initially
designated as Severe for the 2008 ozone NAAQS was July 20, 2016
(excluding the Section 185 Fee Program). The statutory deadlines for
SIP submissions for areas initially designated as Severe for the 2015
ozone NAAQS vary from two to four years

(excluding the Section 185 Fee Program). The RFP and attainment
demonstrations, among other SIP elements, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS are
due on August 3, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The EPA promulgated the SRR for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS at 40 CFR part 52, subpart AA and subpart CC, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under its general CAA section 301(a) authority and with respect to
all SIP requirements for which the SIP submittal deadlines have passed,
the EPA is proposing to establish a new deadline of 12 months from the
effective date of the final action for this reclassification for the
State to submit SIP revisions addressing the Severe area requirements
for San Diego County for the 2008 ozone NAAQS if, and to the extent
that, the EPA finds the two SIP revisions that have already been
submitted are incomplete. This timeframe is consistent with how the EPA
has established SIP submission deadlines under CAA section 182(i) for
ozone areas reclassified by operation of law under CAA section
181(b)(2).\12\ The EPA has also considered that for pollutants other
than ozone, the CAA provides 12 months for states to submit revised
attainment demonstrations when an area fails to attain by its
attainment date.\13\ This timeframe generally allows for the time
necessary for states and local air districts to finish reviews of
available control measures, adopt revisions to necessary attainment
strategies, address other SIP requirements, and complete the public
notice process necessary to adopt and submit timely SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., 85 FR 2311 (January 15, 2020) (Coachella Valley,
California reclassification to Extreme for the 1997 ozone NAAQS); 75
FR 79302 (Dec. 20, 2010) (Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas, reclassification
to Serious for the 1997 ozone NAAQS); 69 FR 16483 (March 30, 2004)
(Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas, reclassification to Serious for the
1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS); 68 FR 4836 (Jan. 30, 2003) (St. Louis,
Missouri, reclassification to Serious for the 1979 1-hour ozone
NAAQS).
    \13\ See CAA section 179(d)(1) (providing 12 months for a state
to submit a new attainment demonstration after a determination that
the area failed to attain by its attainment date).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent SIP revisions are required to address Severe area
requirements for which the SIP submittal deadlines have not passed, the
deadlines from our SRRs for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS would
continue to apply. For instance, upon final reclassification, the
August 3, 2022 deadline \14\ would continue to apply for the RFP and
attainment demonstrations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, if the EPA finds
the relevant SIP revision already submitted are incomplete.\15\ In
addition, as noted previously, the Section 185 Fee Program SIP
submittal would be due July 20, 2022, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and
August 3, 2028, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR 51.1308(b).
    \15\ With respect to implementation of RACT controls in
reclassified areas, implementation is required as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the start of the attainment year
ozone season associated with the area's new attainment deadline, or
January 1 of the third year after the associated SIP revision
submittal deadline, whichever is earlier; or the deadline
established by the Administrator in the final action issuing the
area reclassification. See 40 CFR 51.1312(a)(3)(ii). In this
instance, implementation of RACT would be required as expeditiously
as practicable but no later than January 1, 2025, assuming that the
final reclassification action is effective in calendar year 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. NSR and Title V Program Revisions
    Typically, when we reclassify or approve a reclassification request
to a higher ozone classification, the state must amend its NSR rules to
reflect the lower NSR major source thresholds and higher NSR offset
ratio corresponding to the higher classification. However, with respect
to the San Diego County ozone nonattainment area, the District will not
be required to amend its NSR rules upon reclassification to Severe
because the version of the rules that the District adopted in 2019 and
that the EPA approved in 2020 already include the Severe area major
source thresholds and offset ratios.\16\ Such thresholds and ratios
will apply upon the effective date of the reclassification to
Severe.\17\ The District must also make any changes in its title V
operating permits program for San Diego County necessary to reflect the
change in the major source threshold to 25 tons per year for Severe
areas. The rationale for the EPA's deadline of one year from the
effective date of the final reclassification action is discussed in
Section I.B.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ We took final limited approval and limited disapproval of
District Rules 20.1-20.4 (adopted by the District on June 26, 2019)
at 85 FR 57727 (September 16, 2020). The basis for the limited
disapproval was unrelated to the major source thresholds or offset
ratios.
    \17\ See District Rule 20.1 (New Source Review--General
Provisions), paragraphs (c)(29) (``Federal Major Modification'') and
(c)(30) (``Federal Major Stationary Source''); and District Rule
20.3 (New Source Review--Major Stationary Sources and PSD Stationary
Sources), paragraph (d)(5)(ii) (Emissions Offsets).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Federal Reformulated Gasoline
    Typically, effective one year after the reclassification of any
ozone nonattainment area as a Severe ozone nonattainment area, such
Severe area shall also be a ``covered area'' for purposes of
reformulated gasoline (RFG).\18\ San Diego County is already a covered
area for RFG, and as such, the use of RFG is currently required under
the mobile source requirements in title II of the CAA and the
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 80, subpart D.\19\ RFG is
gasoline blended to burn more cleanly than conventional gasoline and to
reduce emissions of smog-forming and toxic pollutants in the air.
California gasoline (California Phase III Reformulated Gasoline or
``CaRFG3'') can also be used to satisfy federal RFG requirements
because the EPA has approved CaRFG3 as an equivalent fuel formulation
under CAA section 211(k)(4)(B). The RFG requirement will continue to
apply within San Diego County upon reclassification to Severe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See CAA section 211(k)(10)(D).
    \19\ See 40 CFR 80.70(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Reclassification of Areas of Indian Country

    Because the State of California does not have jurisdiction over
Indian country geographically located within the borders of the state,
CARB's request to reclassify the San Diego County nonattainment area
does not apply to Indian country under the jurisdiction of the tribes
identified in 40 CFR 81.305. The EPA implements federal CAA programs,
including reclassifications, in this area of Indian country consistent
with our discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of
the CAA.
    When the EPA designated San Diego County as nonattainment for the
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, we included 18 federally recognized Tribal
Nation reservations within the boundaries of the nonattainment area.
These reservations include: Barona Group of Capitan Grande of Mission
Indians of the Barona Reservation, Campo Band of Diegueno Mission
Indians of the Campo Indian Reservation, Capitan Grande Band of
Diegueno Mission Indians of California,\20\ Ewiiaapaayp Band of
Kumeyaay Indians, Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, Inaja Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians of the Inaja and Cosmit Reservation, Jamul Indian
Village of California, La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, La Posta Band
of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian Reservation, Los
Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians, Manzanita Band of Diegueno
Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation, Mesa Grande Band of
Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande Reservation, Pala Band of
Mission Indians, Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma and
Yuima Reservation, Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon
Reservation, San Pasqual Band

of Diegueno Mission Indians of California, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay
Nation, and Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission
Indians of the Viejas Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Capitan Grande Reservation is jointly controlled by the
Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians and Viejas
Group of Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians. Therefore, in our
action, we refer to 18 tribal reservations within the San Diego
County nonattainment area and 17 tribal governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA contacted tribal officials to invite government-to-
government consultation on this rulemaking.\21\ Under the EPA's
Consultation Policy, the EPA consults on a government-to-government
basis with federally recognized tribal governments when the EPA's
actions and decisions may affect tribal interests.\22\ At the request
of a few tribes, on January 22, 2021, the EPA held an informational
meeting on the reclassification request.\23\ Three tribes--the La Jolla
Band of Luiseno Indians, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, and
Campo Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Campo Indian
Reservation--requested government-to-government consultation. We
provide summaries of the consultation meetings in memoranda included in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The consultation letters are included in the docket for
this action.
    \22\ The EPA's Consultation Policy is available at https://www.epa.gov/tribal/epa-policy-consultation-and-coordination-indian-tribes.
    \23\ The informational meeting slides and notes are included in
the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have considered the relevance of our proposal to reclassify the
San Diego nonattainment area as Severe nonattainment for the 2008 and
2015 ozone standards for each tribe located within San Diego County in
conjunction with the concerns raised by tribes during government-to-
government consultations. We believe that the same facts and
circumstances that support the proposal for the non-Indian country
lands also support the proposal for reservation areas of Indian country
\24\ and any other areas of Indian country where the EPA or a tribe has
demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction located within San Diego
County. The EPA implements federal CAA programs, including
reclassifications, in this area of Indian country consistent with our
discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA.
Accordingly, the EPA is therefore proposing to reclassify areas of
Indian country geographically located in the San Diego County
nonattainment area as Severe for the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to:
``(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) in the presence of sunlight. These two pollutants,
referred to as ozone precursors, are emitted by many types of sources,
including on-and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing ozone
can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ``Fact Sheet--2008 Final Revisions to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' dated March 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ground-level ozone continues to be a pervasive pollution problem in
areas throughout the United States. Ozone and precursor pollutants that
cause ozone can be transported throughout a nonattainment area.
Therefore, boundaries for nonattainment areas are drawn to encompass
both areas with direct sources of pollution as well as nearby areas in
the same airshed in which ozone can be transported. Initial
classifications of nonattainment areas are coterminous with, that is,
they match exactly, their boundaries. The EPA believes this approach
best ensures public health protection from the adverse effects of ozone
pollution. Therefore, it is generally counterproductive from an air
quality and planning perspective to have a different classification for
a land area located within the boundaries of a nonattainment area, such
as the areas of Indian country contained in the ozone nonattainment
areas at issue here.
    Uniformity of classification throughout a nonattainment area is a
guiding principle and premise when an area is being reclassified. In
this particular case, we are proposing to reclassify the San Diego
County nonattainment area and note that the State's reclassification
request is based on modeling results that show that a longer timeframe
is necessary to attain each ozone standard for the San Diego County
nonattainment area. The longer timeframes will provide the time
necessary to realize full implementation of the stationary and mobile
source regulations contained in the District's attainment plan.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ SDCAPCD, ``2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego'' County (October 2020),
page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has carefully considered the views expressed by the Tribes
during the consultation process. Although we heard from Tribes their
concerns about or opposition to the State's request to reclassify the
San Diego nonattainment area, the EPA does not have discretion to deny
the State's voluntary reclassification request.\27\ We also heard
concerns from Tribes that air quality on tribal lands is not accurately
represented by the existing regulatory monitors, including Alpine, the
design value monitor in the San Diego nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ CAA section 181(b)(3) provides states with the ability to
request voluntary reclassification, and the EPA does not have
discretion to deny a voluntary reclassification request from a
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The La Jolla Tribe indicated that they operate a nonregulatory
informational monitor, and that the informational monitor shows ozone
levels that exceed the NAAQS. This information supports reclassifying
the La Jolla Reservation along with the rest of the San Diego ozone
nonattainment area. The Campo and Ewiiaapaayp Tribes indicated that the
air quality on their reservation is pristine and meets the ozone
standards, and they expressed concerns about the nonattainment
classification for their respective reservations.
    Absent monitoring data or an attainment demonstration, the EPA is
relying on our previous analysis, such as the five-factor analysis,
that supported our initial nonattainment designation for San Diego
County, including areas of Indian country, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, as
well as information in the State's reclassification request, as support
for inclusion of the reservations of the Campo and Ewiiaapaayp Tribes
in the proposed reclassification action. The EPA included our five-
factor analysis for the Campo, Ewiiaapaayp, and La Jolla tribes in the
Technical Support Documents or Responses to Comments for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\28\ Several studies have shown ozone transport from the South
Coast air basin and the western portions of San Diego County

can impact the inland areas of San Diego County.\29\ The EPA therefore
found that transport of ozone and its precursors is prevalent within
San Diego County, and from adjacent nonattainment areas. We also
previously reviewed modeling performed in the 2007 8-hour ozone
attainment plan for San Diego County that shows that the inland tribal
reservations experience similar air quality as the surrounding inland
areas.\30\ The EPA also concluded that the reservations for the Campo,
Ewiiaapaayp, and La Jolla tribes do not have any geographical or
topographical barriers that would prevent air pollution transport from
the surrounding San Diego County nonattainment area.\31\ We indicated
that although the terrain is complex, there are no topographic
barriers. Therefore, violations of the eight-hour ozone standard, which
are measured and modeled throughout the nonattainment areas, as well as
shared meteorological conditions within the nonattainment area indicate
that the tribal areas experience similar ozone concentrations.
Additionally, the State's reclassification request indicates that
although air quality in the region has improved substantially, and is
projected to continue to improve, air quality modeling performed by
CARB concludes that a longer timeframe is necessary for the entire
nonattainment area to attain each ozone standard.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The EPA's analysis for including the La Jolla Reservation
and the Campo Reservation within the nonattainment area are detailed
in the EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS designations and was also used to support the 2015 ozone
designations. The TSD is available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0548-0068. The EPA's analysis for the
Ewiiaapaayp Reservation is detailed in the Response to Comments for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS and is available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0142-0042.
    \29\ The EPA previously provided the list of studies on pages 10
and 12 of the TSD for the 2008 ozone NAAQS designations. See also
Attachment M of the SDCAPCD's ``2020 Plan for Attaining the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego County''
(October 2020) for a description of prior studies (page M-16) and
more details on the meteorological conditions in the nonattainment
area.
    \30\ See pages 10 and 12 of the TSD for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
designations.
    \31\ For the La Jolla Tribe, see page 11 of the TSD for the 2008
ozone NAAQS designations. For the Campo Tribe, see page 14. For the
Ewiiaapaayp Tribe, see page 86 of the Response to Comments for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.
    \32\ See page 2 of the SDCAPCD's ``2020 Plan for Attaining the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone in San Diego
County'' (October 2020). The District's modeling demonstration is
provided in Chapter 4.3 and Attachments K and L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA recognizes that the Ewiiaapaayp Tribe has submitted letters
requesting an error correction for the Tribe's designation as part of
the San Diego ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS and a redesignation as a Class I area and participation in the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.\33\ An error
correction, redesignation as a Class I area, and the PSD program are
all outside the narrow scope of this proposed reclassification action,
and therefore the EPA will be reviewing these requests separately and
taking action, as appropriate in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Letter dated February 16, 2021, from Robert Pinto, Sr.,
Tribal Chairman, Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians, to T. Khoi
Nguyen, EPA Region IX. Additionally, see letter dated February 26,
2021, from Robert Pinto, Sr., Tribal Chairman, Ewiiaapaayp Band of
Kumeyaay Indians, to T. Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX following up on
the Class I and PSD request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the considerations outlined above that support
retention of a uniformly-classified ozone nonattainment area, and our
proposal to approve the State's voluntary reclassification request, we
propose to reclassify the entire San Diego nonattainment area,
including reservation areas of Indian country and any other area of
Indian country located within it where the EPA or a tribe has
demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction, as Severe nonattainment
for both the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed
rule from tribal officials. We note that although eligible tribes may
seek EPA approval of relevant tribal programs under the CAA, none of
the affected tribes would be required to submit an implementation plan
as a result of this reclassification.

III. Summary of Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3), we are proposing to grant CARB's
request to reclassify the San Diego County ozone nonattainment area
from Serious to Severe for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and from Moderate to
Severe for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. With respect to Severe SIP element
submittal dates that have passed, the EPA is proposing to establish a
deadline of no later than 12 months from the effective date of
reclassification for submittal of revisions to the San Diego County
portion of the California SIP to meet additional requirements for
Severe ozone nonattainment areas to the extent that such revisions have
not already been submitted. With respect to the Section 185 Fee
Program, upon reclassification to Severe, the deadline for submittal
would be July 20, 2022, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and August 3, 2028,
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS pursuant to the EPA's ozone SRRs. Upon
reclassification, the new attainment dates for the San Diego County
ozone nonattainment area would be as expeditiously as practicable, but
no later than July 20, 2027, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and August 3,
2033, for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    In addition, the EPA is proposing to reclassify reservation areas
of Indian country and any other area of Indian country where the EPA or
a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction within the San
Diego County nonattainment area as Severe nonattainment for the 2008
and 2015 ozone NAAQS. Although eligible tribes may seek the EPA's
approval of relevant tribal programs under the CAA, none of the
affected tribes would be required to submit an implementation plan as a
result of this reclassification.
    We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the
next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments
are provided in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of
this preamble.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to Executive Order 12866. With respect to
lands under state jurisdiction, voluntary reclassifications under CAA
section 181(b)(3) of the CAA are based solely upon requests by the
state, and the EPA is required under the CAA to grant them. These
actions do not, in and of themselves, impose any new requirements on
any sectors of the economy. In addition, because the statutory
requirements are clearly defined with respect to the differently
classified areas, and because those requirements are automatically
triggered by reclassification, reclassification does not impose a
materially adverse impact under Executive Order 12866. With respect to
Indian country, reclassifications do not establish deadlines for air
quality plans or plan revisions. For these reasons, this proposed
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
    In addition, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and that
this proposed rule 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), because the EPA
is required to grant requests by states for

voluntary reclassifications and such reclassifications in and of
themselves do not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate, and
because tribes are not subject to implementation plan submittal
deadlines that apply to states as a result of reclassifications.
    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires the
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
Implications'' are defined in section 1(a) of the Executive Order to
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.''
Several Indian tribes have areas of Indian country located within the
boundary of the San Diego County ozone nonattainment areas.
    The EPA implements federal CAA programs, including
reclassifications, in these areas of Indian country consistent with our
discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA.
The EPA has concluded that this proposed rule might have tribal
implications for the purposes of E.O. 13175 but would not impose
substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor would it preempt Tribal
law. This proposed rule does affect implementation of new source review
for new or modified major stationary sources proposed to be located in
the areas of Indian country proposed for reclassification, and might
affect projects proposed in these areas that require Federal permits,
approvals, or funding. Such projects are subject to the requirements of
the EPA's General Conformity rule, and federal permits, approvals, or
funding for the projects may be more difficult to obtain because of the
lower de minimis thresholds triggered by reclassification.
    Given the potential implications, the EPA contacted tribal
officials early in the process of developing this proposed rule to
provide an opportunity to have meaningful and timely input into its
development. On December 11, 2020, we sent letters to leaders of the 17
tribal governments representing 18 areas of Indian country in the
nonattainment area offering government-to-government consultation and
seeking input on how we could best communicate with the tribes on this
rulemaking effort. On January 12, 2021, we received a response from one
tribe requesting a webinar on this matter on behalf of a few tribes. We
held this informational webinar on January 22, 2021. Additionally, we
received responses from three tribes requesting formal government-to-
government consultation. The consultation letters and the information
and notes from the webinar and the three government-to-government
consultations are included in the docket for this action. The EPA has
carefully considered the views expressed by the Tribes.
    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. This proposed reclassification action
relates to ozone, a pollutant that is regional in nature, and is not
the type of action that could result in the types of local impacts
addressed in Executive Order 12898.
    This proposed action also does not have federalism implications
because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on
the relationship between the national government and the states, nor on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This proposed action does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
CAA.
    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because the EPA interprets
Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under
section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the
regulation.
    Reclassification actions do not involve technical standards and
thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, National parks, Ozone, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: April 2, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-07223 Filed 4-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 136 (Monday, July 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42753-42754]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15226]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-464, OMB Control No. 3235-0527]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 7d-2

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    In Canada, as in the United States, individuals can invest a
portion of their earnings in tax-deferred retirement savings accounts
(``Canadian retirement accounts''). These accounts, which operate in a
manner similar to individual retirement accounts in the United States,
encourage retirement savings by permitting savings on a tax-deferred
basis. Individuals who establish Canadian retirement accounts while
living and working in Canada and who later move to the United States
(``Canadian-U.S. Participants'' or ``participants'') often continue to
hold their retirement assets in their Canadian retirement accounts
rather than prematurely withdrawing (or ``cashing out'') those assets,
which would result in immediate taxation in Canada.
    Once in the United States, however, these participants historically
have been unable to manage their Canadian retirement account
investments. Most investment companies (``funds'') that are ``qualified
companies'' for Canadian retirement accounts are not registered under
the U.S. securities laws. Securities of those unregistered funds,
therefore, generally cannot be publicly offered and sold in the United
States without violating the registration requirement of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Investment Company Act'').\1\ As a result of
this registration requirement, Canadian-U.S. Participants previously
were not able to purchase or exchange securities for their Canadian
retirement accounts as needed to meet their changing investment goals
or income needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a. In addition, the offering and selling of
securities that are not registered pursuant to the Securities Act of
1933 (``Securities Act'') is generally prohibited by U.S. securities
laws. 15 U.S.C. 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission issued a rulemaking in 2000 that enabled Canadian-
U.S. Participants to manage the assets in their Canadian retirement
accounts by providing relief from the U.S. registration requirements
for offers of securities of foreign issuers to Canadian-U.S.
Participants and sales to Canadian retirement accounts.\2\ Rule 7d-2
under the Investment Company Act \3\ permits foreign funds to offer
securities to Canadian-U.S. Participants and sell securities to
Canadian retirement accounts without registering as investment
companies under the Investment Company Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Offer and Sale of Securities to Canadian Tax-Deferred
Retirement Savings Accounts, Release Nos. 33-7860, 34-42905, IC-
24491 (June 7, 2000) [65 FR 37672 (June 15, 2000)]. This rulemaking
also included new rule 237 under the Securities Act, permitting
securities of foreign issuers to be offered to Canadian-U.S.
Participants and sold to Canadian retirement accounts without being
registered under the Securities Act. 17 CFR 230.237.
    \3\ 17 CFR 270.7d-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7d-2 contains a ``collection of information'' requirement
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\4\ Rule 7d-2
requires written offering materials for securities offered or sold in
reliance on that rule to disclose prominently that those securities and
the fund issuing those securities are not registered with the
Commission, and that those securities and the fund issuing those
securities are exempt from registration under U.S. securities laws.
Rule 7d-2 does not require any documents to be filed with the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 7d-2 requires written offering documents for securities
offered or sold in reliance on the rule to disclose prominently that
the securities are not registered with the Commission and may not be
offered or sold in the United States unless registered or exempt from
registration under the U.S. securities laws, and also to disclose
prominently that the fund that issued the securities is not registered
with the Commission. The burden under the rule associated with adding
this disclosure to written offering documents is minimal and is non-
recurring. The foreign issuer,

underwriter, or broker-dealer can redraft an existing prospectus or
other written offering material to add this disclosure statement, or
may draft a sticker or supplement containing this disclosure to be
added to existing offering materials. In either case, based on
discussions with representatives of the Canadian fund industry, the
staff estimates that it would take an average of 10 minutes per
document to draft the requisite disclosure statement.
    The staff estimates that there are 4,312 publicly offered Canadian
funds that potentially would rely on the rule to offer securities to
participants and sell securities to their Canadian retirement accounts
without registering under the Investment Company Act.\5\ The staff
estimates that all of these funds have previously relied upon the rule
and have already made the one-time change to their offering documents
required to rely on the rule. The staff estimates that 216 (5 percent)
additional Canadian funds would newly rely on the rule each year to
offer securities to Canadian-U.S. Participants and sell securities to
their Canadian retirement accounts, thus incurring the paperwork burden
required under the rule. The staff estimates that each of those funds,
on average, distributes 3 different written offering documents
concerning those securities, for a total of 648 offering documents. The
staff therefore estimates that 216 respondents would make 648 responses
by adding the new disclosure statement to 648 written offering
documents. The staff therefore estimates that the annual burden
associated with the rule 7d-2 disclosure requirement would be 108 hours
(648 offering documents x 10 minutes per document). The total annual
cost of these burden hours is estimated to be $49,140 (108 hours x $455
per hour of attorney time).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Investment Company Institute, 2021 Investment Company Fact
Book (2021) at 276, tbl. 66, available at https://www.ici.org/system/files/2021-05/2021_factbook.pdf. Since the last renewal, we
understand that the Investment Company Institute has changed its
methodology to enhance the accuracy of how it estimates the number
of Canadian funds. The estimate used for this renewal reflects this
change in methodology and the number of estimated Canadian funds has
increased from the last renewal.
    \6\ The Commission's estimate concerning the wage rate for
attorney time is based on salary information for the securities
industry compiled by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets
Association (``SIFMA''). The $455 per hour figure for an Attorney is
based on SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2013, updated for 2022, modified by Commission
staff to account for an 1800-hour work-year and inflation, and
multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size, employee
benefits and overhead. As discussed in footnote 5, since the last
renewal, we understand that the Investment Company Institute has
changed its methodology to enhance the accuracy of how it estimates
the number of Canadian funds. The estimate used for this renewal
reflects this change in methodology and the hourly burden has
increased from the last renewal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These burden hour estimates are based upon the Commission staff's
experience and discussions with the fund industry. The estimates of
average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or
even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
    Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the
rule is mandatory and is necessary to comply with the requirements of
the rule in general. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by September 16, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: July 12, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-15226 Filed 7-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37870-37871]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16568]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9996-32-OMS]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of Mission Support, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).

ACTION: Rescindment of a System of Records Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research
and Development is giving notice of its intent to rescind the Peer
Review Panelist Information System of Records Notice (EPA-37).

DATES: The Agency stopped using the PRPIS on January 27, 2016. Persons
wishing to comment on the rescindment of this system must do so by
September 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEI-2018-0566, by one of the following methods:
    Regulations.gov: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: OMS Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: OMS Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2018-0566. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or other information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CUI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous
access'' system for EPA, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. However, over 180 federal agencies use
www.regulations.gov and some may require Personally Identifiable
Information (PII) and some may not. Each agency determines submission
requirements within their own internal processes and standards. EPA has
no requirement of personal information. If you send an email comment
directly to the EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact

you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For
additional information about the EPA's public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CUI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OEI
Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OMS Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bhagya Subramanian at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Peer Review Panelist Information System
(EPA-37) was established to assist the EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) conduct and document review of applications for
research grants, cooperative agreements, and fellowships through the
use of peer reviewers from the scientific community. ORD is no longer
collecting the information about the scientific community. The system
stopped collecting data on Jan 27, 2016. This information is now
processed through Inter Agency Agreement (IA) with the Department of
Health and Human Services. The HHS system is used for Peer reviews. The
EPA Records Schedule 1003 has a 10-year retention. Records collected
are stored on a CD and may be disposed in January 2026.

SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:
    Peer Review Panelist Information System (EPA-37)

HISTORY:
    62 FR 48278 (September 15, 1997)--Establishment of the Peer Review
Panelist Information System of Records Notice (EPA-37).
    67 FR 8246 (February 22, 2002)--Republication of existing System of
Records.

    Dated: May 3, 2019.
Vaughn Noga,
Senior Agency Official for Privacy.
[FR Doc. 2019-16568 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 188)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56920-56921]
[DOCID:fr28se06-35]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0015; FRL-8224-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Revisions To Control Volatile Organic Compound Emissions;
Volatile Organic Compound Control for El Paso, Gregg, Nueces, and
Victoria Counties and the Ozone Standard Nonattainment Areas of
Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Houston/Galveston

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Texas State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions. The revisions pertain to regulations to control
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions from facilities in El Paso,
Gregg, Nueces, and Victoria Counties; the 8-hour ozone standard
nonattainment areas of Beaumont/Port Arthur and Houston/Galveston; and
portions of the Dallas/Fort Worth 8-hour ozone standard nonattainment
area. The revisions add additional controls on VOC emissions from
industrial wastewater systems in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort
Worth, El Paso, and Houston/Galveston areas. The revisions also amend
requirements to identify and correct emissions from VOC leaks from
facilities that refine petroleum or process natural gas, gasoline or
petrochemicals in the Beaumont/Port Arthur, Dallas/Fort Worth, El Paso,
and Houston/Galveston areas, and from petroleum refineries in Gregg,
Nueces, and Victoria Counties. We are proposing to approve the
revisions pursuant to section 110 and part D of the Federal Clean Air
Act. The control of VOC emissions will help to attain and maintain the
8-hour national ambient air quality standard for ozone in Texas.
Approval will make the revised regulations Federally enforceable.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before October 30,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may
also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by
following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the
direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number 214-
665-7263; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in
response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment

on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the rule, and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: September 12, 2006.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
 [FR Doc. E6-15932 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

			OFFICE OF  PREVENTION, PESTICIDES,  AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM								July 11, 2007

Subject: 	Environmental Fate Risk Assessment of Zinc Naphthenate for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)

To:		Tim McMahon, PhD., Risk Assessor and Senior Toxicologist

		Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

				And

Kathryn Jakob, CRM for Zinc Naphthenate RED

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

From:		A. Najm Shamim. PhD, Chemist

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

Thru:		Diane Isbell, Team Leader

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

			And

		Mark Hartman, Chief

		Regulatory Management Branch II

		Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Zinc Naphthenate is an antimicrobial pesticide registered for use as a wood preservative and fungicide.  No environmental fate data were submitted by registrants for a risk assessment. The only data submitted for zinc naphthenate was a leaching study with southern pine surface and pressure treated wood.  No open literature data for zinc naphthenate exist for environmental fate parameters. The Agency has decided to bridge the fate data of copper naphthenate for zinc naphthenate. It should be noted that for copper naphthenate, only some environmental fate parameters are known through modeling estimations.

Zinc naphthenate, like copper naphthenate is a likely to be stable substance in water under aerobic and abiotic conditions, with an estimated half life of more than three months1 and it  is  likely to be highly to moderately immobile in soils with an estimated Koc of over 30001. It is not highly water soluble and has a low vapor pressure (~ 10-4 mm Hg) and air/water partition coefficient (estimated Henry Law Constant) for copper naphthenate is ~ 9.804x 10-6 and therefore   zinc naphthenate like copper naphthenate is likely to evaporate from water surfaces to a high degree as well as it is likely to contaminate surface water by way of soil run-offs.  Zinc naphthenate like copper naphthenate is likely to persist in water and soils.

Estimated log Kow for zinc naphthenate is possibly similar to that of copper naphthenate which is 4.1685 1.  This would indicate that zinc naphthenate can possibly be bioaccumulative in aquatic organisms like fish.  Estimated half life of copper naphthenate in air is 8.858 hours  and zinc naphthenate may likely to have a similar value  and is not likely to be persistent in air.

A laboratory study2 on southern yellow pine stakes has shown that zinc naphthenate does leach from the surface and pressure treated wood.  The rates of leaching from the surface and pressure treated follow the order:  rate of leaching is highest in pH 5>> pH 7 > unbuffered solution > pH 9.  The rate of leaching from surface treated wood at pH 5 is: 0.112 ppm/cm2 /day and for pH 9 it is 0. 0026, ppm/cm2 /day a 40- -fold less.  Similarly the rate of leaching from a pressure treated wood at pH 5 is: 0.019 ppm/cm2 / day and for pH 9 the value is 0.0012, a rate of leaching is 16-fold less. Because of a high Koc zinc naphthenate is likely to contaminate surface soils around the treated wood.

APPENDIX FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FATE ASSESSMENT OF ZINC NAPHTHENATE

Southern yellow pine stakes were treated with zinc naphthenate with the following regiment:

Type of Treatment		Zinc Retention (lbs/ft3)

	Pressure			Mean: 0.08, Max: 0.12, min: 0.06

	Surface			Mean: 0.08, max: 0.20; min: 0.01

The Study author points out that the a typical pressure treatment target level  for commercial use is 0.08 lbs/ft3  as set by AWPA’s Standard C4-93.

The exposed area of the treated wood has been estimated by the registrants as follows: wood dimensions: 1.5 x 1.5 x 3.0 inches.

[ 4 sides x 1.5 x 3.0 inches] + [ 2 ends x 1.5 x 1.5 inches] – [1 end x 1.5 x 1.5 inches] = 20.3 in2

14) Because of the low solubility of zinc naphthenate in water, emulsion solutions were prepared using organic solvents.

The study showed:

Order of leaching: pH  5>> pH 7 > unbuffered > pH 9

At the end of 30 day period of the study  total zinc leachate were determined by using the following relationship: total zinc leached (ppm/in2 ) = total zinc leached (ppm) / exposed surface area (in2 )

Agency calculated the total zinc leach in ppm/in2 and converted them into ppm/cm2 and then calculated the rate (ppm/cm2/day) as shown below.

SUMMARY OF THE LEACHING DATA FOR SURFACE TREATED WOOD OF ZINC NAPHTHENATE

					Table 1

Matrix+	t

0 hr	t

1 hr	t

1 d	T

7 d	t

14 d	T

21 d	t

30

d	Total

Ppm	ppm

/20.3in2	ppm/

cm2	Rate=

ppm/ cm2 /30d

pH 5	ND*	7.5	33.1	69.47	82.0	87.98	92.19	372.23	18.33	5.45	0.112

pH 7	ND*	3.31	23.46	46.93	50.51	52.01	53.45	229.67	11.31	2.07	0.069

pH 9	ND*	0.16	0.87	1.55	1.92	2.15	2.28	8.93	0.43	0.078	0.0026

Unbuff.	ND*	4.78	26.46	48.69	52.04	52.52	51.52	236.01	11.67	2.14	0.071

Notes: 1) * not detected; below detection limit

2) + means samples in deionized water and buffered. Unbuffered means deionized water which is not buffered.

	SUMMARY OF THE LEACHING DATA FOR PRESSURE TREATED WOOD OF ZINC NAPHTHENATE

						Table 2

Matrix + 	t=

0 hr	t=

1 hr	t =

1 d	t=

7d	T=

14 d	t=

21d	t=

30d 	Total ppm	ppm /  20.3 in2	ppm/ cm2	Rate = ppm/

m2/d

pH 5	ND*	1.06	4.52	10.49	14.02	16.35	18.39	64.83	3.19	0.585	0.019

pH 7

	ND*	0.72	2.39	4.16	4.86	5.22	5.45	22.82	1.12	0.20	0.006

pH 9

	ND*	ND*	03.5	0.77	0.93	1.0	1.04	4.09	0.20	0.036	0.0012

Un-buff	ND*	1.28	4.7	9.63	12.42	14.71	15.87	58.66	2.88	0.530	0.017

Notes:  1) * means not detected; below detection limit

2) + means samples in deionized water and buffered. Unbuffered means deionized water which is not buffered.

Bibliography

US EPA document MRID#: 440951-01:

Zinc Naphthenate Leachability From Treated Wood, A Non-Guideline Study for the AD Fate  Data Requirements  1996, by A.C. Gallacher. Dept. of Analytical Services, Ricerca, Inc. 7528 Auburn Rd.; PO Box 1000, Painesville, Ohio, 44077-1000

Cc:  Chemfile (Case 3099), RMBII, Najm Shamim


[Federal Register: April 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 18694-18695]
[DOCID:fr13ap07-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549

Extension: Rule 6a-3, SEC File No. 270-0015, OMB Control No. 3235-
0021

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of

Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.) sets out a framework for the registration and regulation of
national securities exchanges. Under Commission Rule 6a-3 (17 CFR
240.6a-3), one of the rules that implements Section 6, a national
securities exchange (or an exchange exempted from registration as a
national securities exchange based on limited trading volume) must
provide certain supplemental information to the Commission, including
any material (including notices, circulars, bulletins, lists, and
periodicals) issued or made generally available to members of, or
participants or subscribers to, the exchange. Rule 6a-3 also requires
the exchanges to file monthly reports that set forth the volume and
aggregate dollar amount of securities sold on the exchange each month.
    The information required to be filed with the Commission pursuant
to Rule 6a-3 is designed to enable the Commission to carry out its
statutorily mandated oversight functions and to ensure that registered
and exempt exchanges continue to be in compliance with the Act.
    The respondents to the collection of information are national
securities exchanges and exchanges that are exempt from registration
based on limited trading volume.
    The Commission estimates that each respondent makes approximately
25 such filings on an annual basis at an average cost of approximately
$21 per response. Currently, 12 respondents (ten national securities
exchanges and two exempt exchanges) are subject to the collection of
information requirements of Rule 6a-3. The Commission estimates that
the total burden for all respondents is 150 hours (25 filings/
respondent per year x 0.5 hours/filing x 12 respondents) and $6300
($21/response x 25 responses/respondent per year x 12 respondents) per
year.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to: R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within
60 days of this notice.

    Dated: April 5, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7006 Filed 4-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 42066-42067]
[DOCID:fr20au09-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

August 12, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG09-82-000.
    Applicants: North Hurlburt Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status for North Hurlburt Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090812-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: EG09-83-000.
    Applicants: South Hurlburt Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status for South Hurlburt Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090812-5056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: EG09-84-000.
    Applicants: Horseshoe Bend Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status for Horseshoe Bend Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090812-5062.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 02, 2009.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER06-748-002; ER06-763-002.
    Applicants: Shell Chemical LP; Motiva Enterprises LLC.
    Description: Shell Chemical, LP et al. submits Original Sheet 1 et
al. to FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume 1 to be effective.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090811-0064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 31, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1439-002; EL09-32-000.
    Applicants: New Brunswick Power Generation Corporation.
    Description: Market Power Study Compliance Filing of New Brunswick
Power Generation Corporation.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090810-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 09, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-369-002.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits an errata to certain
accepted tariff sheets.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090811-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 01, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-956-001.
    Applicants: Ameren Services Company.
    Description: Ameren Services Company submits refund report for the
Wholesale Distribution Service Agreement between Union Electric Company
and Wabash Valley Power Associates, Inc on behalf of Citizens Electric
Corporation.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090812-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 01, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1027-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator, Inc submits
errata to filing and request for 4/23/09 effective date for tariff
correction.
    Filed Date: 08/06/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 27, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1316-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits Original Service Agreement 2064 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff,
Fourth Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090810-0007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 28, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1379-001.
    Applicants: Ameren Services Company, Union Electric Company.
    Description: Ameren Services Company submits executed revised WDS
Agreement between Ameren Services and the City of Jackson.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090812-0059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1543-001.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits proposed amendment to Open Access Transmission, Energy and
Operating Reserve Markets Tariff.

    Filed Date: 08/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090812-0058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 01, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1558-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits an Agreement for
Network Integration Transmission Service.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 28, 2009.
    Docket Numbers: ER09-1570-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits its Average System
Cost filing for sales of electric power to the Bonneville Power
Administration.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090811-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 01, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1571-000.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Puget Sound Energy submits documents related to its
Residential Purchase and Sale Agreement with Bonneville Power
Administration for Commission review.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090811-0066.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 01, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1572-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits executed interim
interconnection service agreement among PJM, Streator-Cayuga Ridge Wind
Power LLC and Commonwealth Edison Company.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090812-0060.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 01, 2009.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES09-31-002.
    Applicants: Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Supplemental Information of Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Filed Date: 08/10/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090810-5104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 20, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ES09-38-001.
    Applicants: Montana Alberta Tie Ltd.
    Description: Supplemental Filing of Montana Alberta Tie Ltd.
    Filed Date: 08/03/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-5056.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 21, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ES09-46-000.
    Applicants: MATL LLP, Montana Alberta Tie Ltd.
    Description: Application for Authorization to Issue Securities
Under section 204 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 08/11/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090811-5121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 25, 2009.

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

    Docket Numbers: RD09-9-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation
    Description: Petition of North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Errata Changes to Three Reliability
Standards.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090812-5042.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 11, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19931 Filed 8-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P