[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49313-49318]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20167]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2005-0534-201113; FRL-9449-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans North Carolina:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the North
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of
North Carolina in three submittals dated November 30, 2005, March 16,
2007, and June 20, 2008. The revisions modify North Carolina's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR) permitting regulations in the SIP to address
changes to the federal New Source Review (NSR) regulations, which were
promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor
changes on November 7, 2003 (collectively, these two final actions are
referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules''). In addition, the
revisions address an update to the NSR regulations promulgated by EPA
on November 29, 2005 (hereafter referred to as the Ozone Implementation
NSR Update) relating to the implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA proposed to approve
these revisions on September 9, 2008, and received adverse comments. In
this final action, EPA is also responding to the adverse comments.

DATES: This rule will be effective September 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2005-0534. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the North
Carolina SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
information regarding NSR Reform, contact Ms. Yolanda Adams, Air
Permits Section, at the same address above. Ms. Adam's telephone number
is:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, references to
``EPA,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our,'' are intended to mean the
Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is
arranged as follows:

I. What action is EPA taking?
II. What is the background for EPA's action?
III. Response to Comments
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the North
Carolina SIP regarding the State's NSR programs. On November 30, 2005,
March 16, 2007, and June 20, 2008, the State of North Carolina, through
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC
DENR), submitted revisions to the North Carolina SIP. The SIP revisions
consist of changes to North Carolina Air Quality Rules, Subchapter 2D.
Specifically, the November 30, 2005, proposed SIP revision includes
changes to Regulation 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 2D
.0531, ``Sources in Nonattainment Areas.'' The March 16, 2007, proposed
SIP revision includes changes to Regulation 15A NCAC 2D .0530,
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration.'' The June 20, 2008,
proposed SIP revision \1\ includes additional changes to Regulations
15A NCAC 2D .0530, and .0531. NC DENR submitted these revisions in
response to EPA's December 31, 2002, November 7, 2003, and November 29,
2005, revisions to the federal NSR program. Pursuant to section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), EPA is taking final action to approve
these SIP revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The June 20, 2008, SIP revision also included changes to
NCAC Subchapter 2D, Section .2400, Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).
EPA took final action approving the CAIR portion of the June 20,
2008, SIP revision on November 30, 2009. See 74 FR 62496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for EPA's action?

    On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52,
regarding the CAA's PSD and NNSR programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR
63021), EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration
of the December 31, 2002, final rule changes. The December 31, 2002,
and the November 7, 2003, final actions are collectively referred to as
the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' \2\ For additional information on the
2002 NSR Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002). For
information on the subsequent revisions to these rules, see http://www.epa.gov/nsr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For more information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, and its
supporting technical documents, see, http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#2002 (last visited February 16, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also relevant to NC DENR's SIP revisions, on November 29, 2005 (70
FR 71612), EPA promulgated implementation provisions for the 1997 8-
hour NAAQS which made changes to the NSR regulations. These included,
among other changes, a requirement that emissions of nitrogen oxides
(NOx) be considered a precursor to ozone. These rules are commonly
referred to as the Ozone Implementation NSR Update.
    On November 30, 2005, March 16, 2007, and June 20, 2008, NC DENR
submitted SIP revisions to EPA for the purpose of revising the State's
NSR permitting provisions to adopt EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules and the
Ozone Implementation NSR Update. These SIP revisions incorporate by
reference (IBR) the federal NSR rules at 40 CFR 51.166 and 51.165, as
amended on June 13, 2007, with several changes. See EPA's analysis of
the State's NSR SIP revisions in the September 9, 2008, proposed
rulemaking. See 73 FR 52226. Copies of North Carolina's revised NSR
rules, as well as the State's Technical Support Document, can be
obtained from the docket, as discussed in the ADDRESSES section above.
    On September 9, 2008 (73 FR 52226), EPA proposed to approve the
above-referenced SIP revisions. In response to

a request for an extension of the public comment period for EPA's
September 9, 2008, proposed rulemaking, EPA extended the public comment
period through November 10, 2008 (73 FR 58084). EPA received adverse
comments from the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) and the Duke
Energy Corporation (DEC) regarding North Carolina's NSR Reform Rule
changes. No adverse comments were received for North Carolina's rule
changes to adopt the provisions of the Ozone Implementation NSR Update.
EPA's response to these comments is below in section III of this final
rulemaking. EPA's analysis of the State's NSR SIP revisions is
contained in the September 9, 2008, proposed rulemaking, and briefly
summarized as follows. See 73 FR 52226.
    EPA's evaluation of the North Carolina SIP submittals included a
line-by-line comparison of the proposed revisions with the federal
requirements. As a general matter, state agencies may meet the
requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with
different but equivalent regulations. As mentioned above, North
Carolina chose to IBR the federal rules with several changes. The
definition of ``baseline actual emissions'' at subchapter 2D
.0530(b)(1) and .0531(a)(1) was changed to remove the provision
allowing emissions units that are not electric utility steam generating
units (EUSGUs) to look back 10 years to select the baseline period.
North Carolina rules treat EUSGUs and non-EUSGUs the same by allowing a
look back of only 5 years. However, North Carolina rules provide the
option of allowing a different time period, not to exceed 10 years, if
the owner or operator demonstrates that it is more representative of
normal source operation. In addition, North Carolina rules require
EUSGUs to adjust downward the baseline emissions to account for
reductions required under the North Carolina Clean Smokestack Act (CSA)
(a state law mandating emission reductions from certain EUSGUs). North
Carolina's rules also include some changes from the federal rules
regarding recordkeeping and reporting; plant-wide applicability limits;
and clarifications regarding the use of emissions reductions from the
CSA. One such clarification is that any allowances for emissions
reductions achieved under the CSA are not available to the subject
facilities, nor any other sources, and may not be used to offset
emissions and avoid installation of best available control technology
or lowest achievable emissions rate on new natural gas-fired units. A
full discussion of the differences between the North Carolina rules and
the federal rules is available in the proposal action. See 73 FR 52226.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received two sets of adverse comments on the September 9, 2008,
proposed rulemaking to approve North Carolina's November 30, 2005,
March 16, 2007, and June 20, 2008, SIP revisions. Specifically, adverse
comments were received from NRDC and DEC. A complete set of these
comments is provided in the docket for today's rulemaking. EPA's
response to these adverse comments is provided below.

A. EPA's Response to NRDC Comments

    NRDC commented on EPA's proposed rulemaking to approve North
Carolina's NSR rule changes. Specifically, NRDC primarily commented on
the requirements of the federal NSR rules, not North Carolina's
application of the federal requirements in its own rules. Notably, NRDC
participated in litigation challenging EPA's 2002 promulgation of the
NSR Reform Rules, where similar arguments were made by NRDC and
dismissed by the D.C. Circuit Court. New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC
Cir. 2005). NRDC's comments, including exhibits, do not raise any
specific concerns with North Carolina's rules, but rather, reiterate
arguments made by NRDC to the D.C. Circuit regarding sections 110(l)
and 193 of the CAA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NRDC notes that, ``[t]he 2002 rule provisions considered by
the D.C. Circuit in New York v. EPA were EPA regulations, not state
ones. The court thus had no occasion to decide whether EPA could
approve any state's versions of any of the 2002 rule provisions
consistently with section 110(l) of the Act.'' NRDC Comments at 3.
The North Carolina rules at issue here track the federally approved
rules (upheld by the DC Circuit) (which NRDC admits--NRDC Comments
at 4) and NRDC supported all its comments with information related
to the challenge of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. NRDC provided no
North Carolina-specific support for its comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While NRDC's comments provide citations to eleven portions of the
North Carolina rules, the comments make no attempt to specifically
explain or demonstrate how those identified provisions are inconsistent
with either section 110(l) or section 193 of the CAA. Furthermore, NRDC
provides no evidence supporting its allegations that approval of the
specific provisions would result in a violation of the CAA or otherwise
be ``arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not
in accordance with law.'' NRDC Comments at 2.
    The NRDC comments include a list of 31 exhibits which the comment
letter incorporates by reference into the comments. NRDC Comments at 1.
The 31 exhibits appear to all be related to the DC Circuit Court case
New York v. EPA, and were either submitted to that Court for review, or
are relevant to that adjudication. To the extent that these exhibits
were provided to the DC Circuit, those issues were previously resolved
by the Court and/or already responded to by EPA in its responsive court
papers. Any other documents included in the 31 exhibits that were not
provided to the DC Circuit Court do not provide EPA with any comments
specific to the North Carolina rules at issue.
    Despite the lack of North Carolina-specific discussion in NRDC's
letter, EPA has responded to the few comments that appear related to
the September 9, 2008, proposed rulemaking to approve North Carolina's
SIP revision pertaining to EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Similar comments were filed by Sierra Club on the Wisconsin
NSR Reform SIP revision. EPA's response to comments in that matter
may be reviewed at http://www.regulations.gov--document ID EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0609-0009. EPA was successful in defending a challenge to
approval of Wisconsin's NSR Reform SIP revision. See NRDC v.
Jackson, Nos. 09-1405 & 10-2123 (7th Cir., Jun. 16, 2011), 2011 US
App LEXIS 12116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 1: In summary, NRDC stated that finalizing the EPA
September 9, 2008, proposed rulemaking to approve North Carolina's
November 30, 2005, March 16, 2007, and June 20, 2008, SIP revisions
would violate section 110(l) of the Act. NRDC comments at 1-6. As
support for its conclusion, NRDC asserted that ``[t]he 2002 NSR Reform
Rule provisions that were not vacated by the DC Circuit in New York v.
EPA [citation omitted] allow previously-prohibited emissions-increases
to occur.'' NRDC comments at 4. Further, that ``North Carolina
nevertheless has made no `demonstration that the emissions that are
allowed by its revised rule but are prohibited by the current SIP would
not interfere with attainment or other applicable requirements.' '' As
a result, NRDC stated that, ``it cannot be said of North Carolina's
plan that it `will cause no degradation of air quality.' '' NRDC
comments at 5. NRDC also stated that EPA has not made any findings that
North Carolina's rule will not cause degradation of air quality or
interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirements of
the CAA. NRDC comments at 5.
    Response 1: EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules were upheld by the DC
Circuit

Court which reviewed them, with the exception of the pollution control
project and clean unit provisions (and the remanded matters). The three
significant changes in NSR Reform that were upheld by the DC Circuit
were: (1) Plant-wide applicability limits (PALs), (2) the 2-in-10
baseline, and (3) the actual-to-projected actual emission test. The
Supplemental Environmental Analysis of the Impact of the 2002 Final NSR
Improvement Rules (November 21, 2002) (Supplemental Analysis) discussed
each of these three changes individually, and addresses some of the
issues raised by NRDC.
    With regard to PALs, the Supplemental Analysis explained, ``[t]he
EPA expects that the adoption of PAL provisions will result in a net
environmental benefit. Our experience to date is that the emissions
caps found in PAL-type permits result in real emissions reductions, as
well as other benefits.'' Supplemental Analysis at 6. EPA further
explained that,

    ``Although it is impossible to predict how many and which
sources will take PALs, and what actual reductions those sources
will achieve for what pollutants, we believe that, on a nationwide
basis, PALs are certain to lead to tens of thousands of tons of
reductions of [volatile organic compounds] from source categories
where frequent operational changes are made, where these changes are
time-sensitive, and where there are opportunities for economical air
pollution control measures. These reductions occur because of the
incentives that the PAL creates to control existing and new units in
order to provide room under the cap to make necessary operational
changes over the life of the PAL.''

Supplemental Analysis at 7. The Supplemental Analysis, and particularly
Appendix B, provided additional details regarding EPA's analysis of
PALs and anticipated associated emission decreases.
    With regard to the 2-in-10 baseline, EPA concluded that, ``[t]he
EPA believes that the environmental impact from the change in baseline
EPA is now finalizing will not result in any significant change in
benefits derived from the NSR program.'' Supplemental Analysis at 13.
This is mainly because ``the number of sources receiving different
baselines likely represents a very small fraction of the overall NSR
permit universe, excludes new sources and coal fired power plants, and
because the baseline may shift in either direction, we conclude that
any overall consequences would be negligible.'' Supplemental Analysis
at 14. Additional information regarding the 2-in-10 baseline changes is
available in the Supplemental Analysis, Appendix F.
    With regard to the actual-to-projected actual test, EPA concluded,
``we believe that the environmental impacts of the switch to the
actual-to-projected actual test are likely to be environmentally
beneficial. However, as with the change to the baseline, we believe the
vast majority of sources, including new sources, new units, electric
utility steam generating units, and units that actually increase
emissions as a result of a change, will be unaffected by this change.
Thus, the overall impacts of the NSR changes are likely to be
environmentally beneficial, but only to a small extent.'' Supplemental
Analysis at 14 (see also Supplemental Analysis Appendix G).
    Section 110(l) of the CAA states, in relevant part, that ``[t]he
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress * * * or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.'' CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). In ``Approval
and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Source Review; State of
Nevada, Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental
Management,'' 69 FR 54006 (September 7, 2004), EPA stated that section
110(l) does not preclude SIP relaxations. Rather, EPA stated that
section 110(l) only requires that the ``relaxations not interfere with
specified requirements of the Act including requirements for attainment
and reasonable further progress,'' and that, therefore, a state can
relax its SIP provisions if it is able to show that it can attain or
maintain the NAAQS and meet any applicable reasonable further progress
goals or other specific requirements. See 69 FR at 54011-12.
    North Carolina's November 30, 2005, March 16, 2007, and June 20,
2008, SIP revisions track the federal NSR Reform Rules, with changes,
as described in North Carolina's SIP revisions. EPA evaluated North
Carolina's rules consistent with its evaluation of the federal rules,
and determined that North Carolina's rules were equivalent to or more
stringent than the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. Overall, as summarized above,
EPA expects that changes in air quality as a result of implementing
North Carolina's rules as updated by the aforementioned SIP revisions
is consistent with EPA's position on the federal NSR Reform Rules--that
there will be somewhere between neutral and providing modest
contribution to reasonable further progress between the NSR Reform and
pre-Reform provisions. EPA's analysis for the environmental impacts of
the three components of the NSR Reform rules (discussed earlier) is
informative of how North Carolina's adoption of NSR Reform (based on
the federal rules) will affect emissions. EPA has no reason to believe
that the environmental impacts will be different from those discussed
in the Supplemental Analysis for the NSR Reform Rules, and thus,
approval of the November 30, 2005, March 16, 2007, and June 20, 2008,
SIP revisions related to NSR Reform would not be contrary to section
110(l) of the CAA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In reviewing EPA's approval of a Wisconsin SIP amendment
that adopted the 2002 NSR Reform rules, a federal appeals court
recently held that EPA could rely on the Supplemental Analysis in
support of its approval. See NRDC v. Jackson, Nos. 09-1405 & 10-2123
(7th Cir., Jun. 16, 2011), 2011 US App LEXIS 12116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: NRDC cites to eleven general portions of North
Carolina's rules as provisions that would violate section 110(l). These
provisions are: Regulation 15A North Carolina Administrative Code
(NCAC), Subchapter 2D .0530, subsections (a), (b), (g), (i), (u), and
(v) (from North Carolina's PSD rules); and Subchapter 2D .0531,
subsections (a), (c), (n), (o), and (p) (from North Carolina's NNSR
rules).
    Response 2: With regard to the comments, NRDC provides no evidence
supporting its contention that these specific provisions violate
section 110(l). The first provision noted by NRDC, 15A NCAC 02D
.0530(a) states the general purpose of the rule to implement North
Carolina's PSD program, which does include some changes per the SIP
revisions at issue. Nonetheless, without further specificity, it is not
clear why or how NRDC believes this provision is a violation of section
110(l). In addition, NRDC has provided no North Carolina-specific
documentation that indicates that EPA's analysis and conclusions
regarding the impact of NSR Reform, in the Supplemental Analysis, is
not applicable to North Carolina's rules, which are equivalent to or
more stringent than the federal rules.
    In evaluating North Carolina's November 30, 2005, March 16, 2007,
and June 20, 2008, SIP revisions, EPA compared North Carolina's rules
with the existing federal rules and determined that North Carolina's
rules were equivalent to or more stringent than the NSR Reform
(federal) rules. EPA also considered North Carolina's changes to the
federal NSR Reform provisions. These changes were discussed in EPA's
September 9, 2008, proposed rulemaking to approve North Carolina's
three SIP revisions related to NSR Reform, and are discussed in North
Carolina's final submittal (including

North Carolina's response to comments received during the State public
process), which are included in the docket for today's final action. As
was explained in EPA's September 9, 2008, proposed rulemaking, EPA
agrees with North Carolina's conclusion that the changes are at least
equivalent to the Federal rules. See 73 FR 52228-52229. EPA also
considered the Supplemental Analysis in reviewing North Carolinas's
three SIP revisions related to NSR Reform, and NRDC's comments. EPA
concluded that approval of North Carolina's SIP revisions would not be
contrary to section 110(l) of the CAA.
    Absent more explicit information demonstrating that North
Carolina's plan for implementation of a specific provision of its rules
would interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA and thus
should be disapproved under section 110(l), EPA is concluding that
North Carolina's Technical Support Document and the Supplemental
Analysis supports approval. As a result, there is no basis on which to
determine that approval of North Carolina's rules would violate section
110(l).
    Comment 3: NRDC states that NSR is a ``control requirement'' and
thus the requirements of section 193 apply to the NSR rules at issue in
North Carolina's November 30, 2005, March 16, 2007, and June 20, 2008,
SIP revisions. NRDC comments at 7. NRDC further alleges that North
Carolina's revisions ``ensure that emissions will not be reduced as
much as under the pre-existing rules. In fact, the modifications allow
emissions to increase in North Carolina's nonattainment areas.'' NRDC
comments at 9. Finally, NRDC states that ``because section 193 lies
within part D,'' ``if EPA approves North Carolina's revised plan, that
action will additionally exceed the agency's authority under section
110(k)(3) and violate section 100(l).'' (Note, the last citation to
100(l) appears to be a typographical error and should read 110(l).)
NRDC comments at 10.
    Response 3: EPA's response to the section 193 issues raised by NRDC
involves many of the same elements of the response above to the section
110(l) comments, which is also incorporated by reference here. Section
193 states (in relevant part), that ``[n]o control requirement in
effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or
plan in effect before November 15, 1990, in any area which is a
nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after November
15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or
greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.''
    Assuming for purposes of this discussion that section 193 does
apply to the instant action, as was discussed earlier in this notice,
EPA has previously determined and explained in the Supplemental
Analysis, that implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform Rule provisions
still in effect (that is, those not vacated by the DC Circuit) are
expected to have at least a neutral environmental benefit. While North
Carolina's rules do include some changes from the Federal rules, in the
September 9, 2008, proposed rulemaking, EPA explained the basis for its
evaluation that the differences do not make North Carolina's NSR
program less stringent than the federal program. EPA has no information
indicating that findings associated with EPA's Supplemental Analysis
would not apply in North Carolina--that is, that North Carolina's SIP
revisions would have at least a neutral environmental benefit. See
e.g., NRDC v. Jackson, Nos. 09-1405 & 10-2123 (7th Cir., Jun. 16,
2011), 2011 US App LEXIS 12116 (upholding EPA's reliance on the
Supplemental Analysis where there was no information indicating an
alternative outcome or analysis). Therefore, even if section 193 did
apply to this action, EPA does not agree with commenter's assertions
that the SIP revisions approved in this action raise a section 193
concern.
    In addition, the core of NRDC's argument seems to revolve around
the DC Circuit Court decision in South Coast Air Quality Management
District v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006) (finding that NSR
associated with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS included control requirements).
At issue in South Coast v.EPA was EPA's determination regarding the
revocation of the entire 1-hour ozone program (and corresponding SIP
elements), including all the 1-hour nonattainment NSR elements, and
whether such elements would continue to be required as part of SIPs
implementing the new (at that time) 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The facts in
the South Coast v. EPA case are distinguishable from the instant matter
where the North Carolina SIP is merely being updated to include changes
to the Federal NSR program. EPA is not removing the entirety of North
Carolina's NNSR program from the SIP as it pertains to a particular
NAAQS. Rather, EPA is simply approving North Carolina's SIP revisions
that adopt rules equivalent to or more stringent than the federal
rules; and as discussed earlier in this notice, EPA developed a
Supplemental Analysis to support adoption of the federal rules. The
North Carolina SIP will continue to operate with the full suite of NSR
related elements, including a comprehensive minor source program.

B. EPA's Response to DEC Comments

    DEC also commented on EPA's September 9, 2008, proposed rulemaking
to approve North Carolina's NSR rule. DEC primarily commented on the
requirements that electric utilities adjust downward the baseline
emissions to account for reductions achieved and paid for as a result
of the North Carolina CSA. Below summarizes DEC's comment and EPA's
response.
    Comment 4: DEC indicated that EPA should not approve these
provisions into North Carolina's SIP because: (1) They are not required
by the CAA and the federal NSR regulations; (2) they have nothing to do
with air quality concerns; and (3) the General Assembly of North
Carolina adopted legislation which provides specific exceptions from
the requirement to adjust baseline emissions downward based on the CSA.
    Response 4: As a point of background, on August 21, 2009, North
Carolina provided a SIP revision to EPA requesting that EPA incorporate
the provisions of the CSA into the SIP. The submittal was necessary to
ensure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS within North Carolina
(North Carolina has relied, and continues to rely, on the CSA
reductions to demonstrate attainment with more than one NAAQS). As part
of redesignation submittals for at least two areas in North Carolina,
for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, North Carolina is relying
on the CSA as containing ``permanent and enforceable'' measures that
ensure maintenance for that NAAQS. That reliance necessitated that
North Carolina submit to EPA the CSA for approval into the SIP. On June
22, 2011, EPA proposed to approve the CSA into the North Carolina SIP.
See 76 FR 36468.
    As was explained in the proposal action, North Carolina's rules
include a requirement that EUSGUs adjust downward the baseline
emissions to account for reductions required under the North Carolina
Clean Smokestack Act. DEC's comments appear to suggest that because the
CSA reductions are not required, this provision should not be approved
into the SIP. Further, that the North Carolina legislature took action
to eliminate this provision for at least a certain period of time.
Consistent with the background information provided above, because
North Carolina is in fact relying on the CSA reductions for attainment
and maintenance of NAAQS for various areas around North Carolina, the
provision is actually necessary to

ensure that the reductions remain permanent and enforceable. While
there remains some flexibility in how those reductions are achieved per
the CSA, once achieved, they must be permanent.
    With regard to the action taken by the legislature on July 17, 2006
(the text of which DEC included as part of its comments), the language
itself in Senate Bill 1587 only applies between April 21, 2005, and
August 1, 2006. Because that time period has lapsed, there is nothing
apparent in Senate Bill 1587 that could impact approval of the SIP
revisions currently being approved today. The comment letter does not
explain why a provision that lapsed on August 1, 2006, would apply to
today's rulemaking and PSD applicability going forward from the
effective date of today's rule. As a general matter, EPA does not
necessarily agree with DEC's legal arguments; however, given that
Senate Bill 1587 does not apply currently, these differences need not
be resolved at this time. The NSR reform rules being approved today
would apply to the facilities at issue under the CSA once today's
action is final and effective, per the provisions of the State rules
now being incorporated into the SIP.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the North
Carolina SIP for Regulations 15A NCAC 2D .0530 and .0531, as submitted
by the NC DENR on November 30, 2005, March 16, 2007, and June 20, 2008.
These SIP revisions address changes to North Carolina's PSD and NNSR
programs. EPA is approving these revisions into the North Carolina SIP
because they are consistent with section 110 of the CAA and its
implementing regulations.

V. 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 October 11, 2011. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 25, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770(c), Table 1, is amended under Subchapter 2D, Section
.0500, by revising the entries for ``Sect .0530'' and ``Sect .0531'' to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                Table 1--EPA-Approved North Carolina Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
          State citation               Title/subject      effective     EPA approval date        Explanation
                                                             date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Section .0500 Emission Control Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sect .0530.......................  Prevention of            5/1/2008  8/10/2011 [Insert     15 NCAC .0530
                                    Significant                        citation of           incorporates by
                                    Deterioration.                     publication].         reference the
                                                                                regulations found
                                                                                at 40 CFR 51.166,
                                                                                with changes, as of
                                                                                June 13, 2007. This
                                                                                EPA action is
                                                                                approving the
                                                                                incorporation by
                                                                                reference with the
                                                                                exception of the
                                                                                phrase ``except
                                                                                ethanol production
                                                                                facilities
                                                                                producing ethanol
                                                                                by natural
                                                                                fermentation under
                                                                                the North American
                                                                                Industry
                                                                                Classification
                                                                                System (NAICS)
                                                                                codes 325193 or
                                                                                312140,'' (as
                                                                                amended at 40 CFR
                                                                                51.166(b)(1)(i)(a),
                                                                                (b)(1)(iii)(t), and
                                                                                (i)(1)(ii)(t).
Sect .0531.......................  Sources in               5/1/2008  8/10/2011 [Insert     15 NCAC .0531
                                    Nonattainment Areas.               citation of           incorporates by
                                                                       publication].         reference the
                                                                                regulations found
                                                                                at 40 CFR 51.165,
                                                                                with changes, as of
                                                                                June 13, 2007. This
                                                                                EPA action is
                                                                                approving the
                                                                                incorporation by
                                                                                reference with the
                                                                                exception of the
                                                                                phrase ``except
                                                                                ethanol production
                                                                                facilities
                                                                                producing ethanol
                                                                                by natural
                                                                                fermentation under
                                                                                the North American
                                                                                Industry
                                                                                Classification
                                                                                System (NAICS)
                                                                                codes 325193 or
                                                                                312140,'' (as
                                                                                amended at 40 CFR
                                                                                51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C)
                                                                                (20) and
                                                                                (a)(4)(xx).
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-20167 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1495-1496]
[FR Doc No: 2011-247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0355]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt twenty-one individuals
from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective January 10, 2011. The exemptions
expire on January 10, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room W64-224,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On November 15, 2010, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
Federal diabetes exemption applications from twenty-one individuals and
requested comments from the public (75 FR 69734). The public comment
period closed on December 15, 2010 and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the twenty-one applicants
and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777)
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These twenty-one applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 23
years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years.
In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has
demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her
diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management,
and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other
disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications.
Each meets the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the November 15, 2010, Federal
Register notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was
considered and discussed below.
    The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation stated that it had
reviewed the driving record for Robert V. Boltz and were in favor of
granting a Federal diabetes exemption to this individual.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the twenty-one exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts, Roger H. Allen, Thomas H. Baalmann, Jerry A. Barber,
Robert V. Boltz, Hulie A. Brandvold, Richard E. Crum, Marc A.
Cunningham, Terry D. Cunningham, William S. Dawson, Dean A.
Dalessandro, Albert H. Feldt, Christopher J. Grause, Shannon A.
Griffin, Edward M. Houston, John R. MacDougall, Carlos E. Martinez,
Matthew M. Rollins, Shawn G. Sherman, Mark W. Shuff, Steven M. Simpson
and James H. Smith from the ITDM standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3),
subject to the conditions listed under ``Conditions and Requirements''
above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: December 29, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-247 Filed 1-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 33803]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14408]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Order of Suspension of Trading

June 7, 2011.

    IN THE MATTER OF AMERICAN PACIFIC RIM COMMERCE GROUP; ANYWHERE
MD, INC.; CALYPSO WIRELESS, INC.; CASCADIA INVESTMENTS, INC.;
CYTOGENIX, INC.; EMERGING HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.; EVOLUTION
SOLAR CORPORATION; GLOBAL RESOURCE CORPORATION; GO SOLAR USA, INC.;
KORE NUTRITION, INC.; LAIDLAW ENERGY GROUP, INC.; MIND TECHNOLOGIES,
INC.; MONTVALE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; MSGI TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC.
(F/K/A MGSI SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.); PRIME STAR GROUP, INC.; SOLAR
PARK INITIATIVES, INC.; UNITED STATES OIL & GAS CORPORATION

    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
the issuers listed below. As set forth below for each issuer, questions
have arisen regarding the accuracy of publicly disseminated
information, concerning, among other things: (1) The company's assets;
(2) the company's business operations; (3) the company's current
financial condition; and/or (4) issuances of shares in company stock.
    1. American Pacific Rim Commerce Group is a California corporation
based in Florida. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and
accuracy of press releases concerning the company's revenues.
    2. Anywhere MD, Inc. is a Nevada corporation with its principal
place of business in California. Questions have arisen concerning the
adequacy and accuracy of publicly available information about the
company.
    3. Calypso Wireless, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Texas.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy of publicly available
information about the company.
    4. Cascadia Investments, Inc. is a Nevada corporation based in
Washington State. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and
accuracy of press releases concerning the company's operations and
assets.
    5. CytoGenix, Inc. is a Nevada corporation based in Texas.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press
releases concerning the company's operations and financing
transactions.
    6. Emerging Healthcare Solutions, Inc. is a Wyoming corporation
based in Texas. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and
accuracy of press releases concerning the company's operations and
assets.
    7. Evolution Solar Corporation is a Colorado corporation based in
Arizona. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of
the company's Web site and press releases concerning the company's
operations and revenues.
    8. Global Resource Corporation is a Nevada corporation based in
North Carolina. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and
accuracy of press releases concerning the company's operations and the
adequacy of publicly available information about the company.
    9. Go Solar USA, Inc. is a Nevada corporation based in Louisiana.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press
releases concerning the company's products and operations.
    10. Kore Nutrition, Inc. is a Nevada corporation based in Nevada.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press
releases concerning the company's operations.
    11. Laidlaw Energy Group, Inc. is a New York corporation based in
New York. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of
press releases concerning the company's operations, the accuracy of its
financial statements, and stock promoting activity by the company.
    12. Mind Technologies, Inc. is a Nevada corporation based in
California. Questions have arisen concerning the accuracy of its
financial statements.
    13. Montvale Technologies, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation based
in New Jersey. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and
accuracy of publicly available information about the company.
    14. MSGI Technology Solutions, Inc. (f/k/a MSGI Security Solutions,
Inc.) is a Nevada corporation based in New York. Questions have arisen
concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press releases concerning the
company's operations and financing transactions.
    15. Prime Star Group, Inc. is a Nevada corporation based in Nevada.
Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of press
releases concerning the company's operations.
    16. Solar Park Initiatives, Inc. is a Nevada corporation based in
Florida. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and accuracy of
press releases concerning the company's operations and revenues.
    17. United States Oil & Gas Corporation is a Delaware corporation
based in Texas. Questions have arisen concerning the adequacy and
accuracy of press releases concerning the company's operations and
stock promoting activity by the company.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m.
E.D.T., on June 7, 2011 through 11:59 p.m. E.D.T., on June 20, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14408 Filed 6-7-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:		Jenkins, Paul<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:		Thursday, January 16, 2020 10:19 AM
To:		Mary-Jo Caldwell
Subject:	Re: Revised summary of our communication regarding catalyst testing
Yes, that appears to accurately reflect our conversation.
Paul

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:17 AM Mary-Jo Caldwell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>wrote:
Paul,
Below I have provided a revised summary of our communication regarding catalyst testing.  Please confirm that it accurately represents our conversations.
As I mentioned on the phone on January 14, 2020, I am working with the U.S. EPA on the Residual Risk analysis for the Paper and Other Web Coating (POWC) NESHAP.  As part of that effort, we are estimating the cost of requiring annual catalyst testing for catalytic oxidizers used in the POWC industry.  I called you to discuss these costs, and this email summarizes our discussion.  Please review the information below, and confirm that it accurately represents our conversation.
I called you because you are listed as the permit contact in the 2008 Statement of Basis for the CPFilms Fieldale facility.  Their permit requires annual testing of the catalyst, and I asked you if you had an estimate of the cost of such catalyst testing.
You indicated that although VADEQ does not have formal guidance that requires annual testing of the catalyst in catalytic oxidizers, it is common practice for your region to include this requirement in permits.  You indicated that you believe most if not all of the permits that your region has written do include this requirement, but that you could not guarantee this for older permits or for all permits in Virginia without checking.
You said you did not have an estimate of the associated costs of such testing.  However, you indicated that when you worked at Wolverine Gasket in Blacksburg, Virginia, which used a catalytic oxidizer, the catalytic oxidizer manufacturer tested the catalyst annually.  To your recollection, the testing was done at no cost to the facility, and you said you thought annual catalyst testing may have been part of the warranty.
Thank you for your review of our conversation.
Mary-Jo

Mary-Jo Caldwell
Caldwell Environmental, Inc.
6205 Winthrop Drive
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-812-5309


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51528-51530]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18474]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78447; File No. SR-IEX-2016-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Correct
Typographical Errors in Certain Referenced Time Frames

July 29, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on July 27, 2016, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'') is filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change to make a nonsubstantive change to correct typographical errors
in the referenced time frames for the Post-Market Hours and the Post-
Market Session trading in Rule 1.160(aa), the referenced time frames
for System Hours in Rule 1.160(oo), and the referenced time frames for
the Regular Market Session, Pre-Market Session and Post-Market Session
in Rule 16.105(a)(7) and (b)(7). The Exchange has designated this rule
change as ``non-controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
\6\ and provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statement [sic] may be examined
at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory
organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C
below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule filing is to correct
typographical errors in the referenced time frames for the Post-Market
Hours and the Post-Market Session trading in Rule 1.160(aa), the
referenced time frames for System Hours in Rule 1.160(oo), as well as
the referenced time frames for the Regular Market Session, Pre-Market
Session and Post-Market Session in Rule 16.105(a)(7) and (b)(7).
    Specifically, Rule 1.160(aa) incorrectly states that the term
``Post-Market Hours'' or ``Post Market Session'' shall mean the time
between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. The rule should instead
state that the term ``Post-Market Hours'' or ``Post Market Session''
shall mean the time between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
Similarly, Rule 1.160(oo) incorrectly states that the term ``System
Hours'' ends at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time, rather than 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Time.
    In addition, Rule 16.105(a)(7) and (b)(7) incorrectly state that
Regular Market Session trading occurs until 4:15 p.m. rather than 4:00
p.m. Those rule provisions also incorrectly state that the Pre-Market
Session begins at 4:00 a.m. rather than 8:00 a.m. and that the Post-
Market Session ends at 8:00 p.m. rather than 5:00 p.m.
    The proposed rule change would correct the time frame references,
and thus clarify exchange rules and alleviate any confusion among
market participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) \8\ of the Act in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes it is appropriate to make the specified corrections
so that the correct times are referenced in its rules and alleviate any
confusion among market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition because IEX is merely correcting its rules to
correct inadvertent errors.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\
thereunder. Because the proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\ The Exchange notes that its proposal makes a
non-substantive change and has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day
operative delay, making this proposal operative upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest because the
Exchange is merely correcting referenced time frames, which may
alleviate any potential confusion among market participants. Therefore,
the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \14\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2016-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2016-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-IEX-2016-03 and should be submitted on or before August
25, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18474 Filed 8-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 211 (Friday, October 31, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64721-64722]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25725]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2014-0366; FRL-9918-55-Region-6]

Arkansas: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management
Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Proposed rule

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

SUMMARY: The State of Arkansas has applied to EPA for Final
authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant
Final authorization to the State of Arkansas. In the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, EPA is authorizing the
changes by an immediate final rule. EPA did not make a proposal prior
to the direct final rule because we believe this action is not
controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. We have
explained the reasons for this authorization in the preamble to the
direct final rule. Unless we get written comments which oppose this
authorization during the comment period, the direct final rule will
become effective on the date it establishes, and we will not take
further action on this proposal. If we receive comments that oppose
this action, we will withdraw

the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We will then respond
to public comments in a later final rule based on this proposal. You
may not have another opportunity for comment. If you want to comment on
this action, you must do so at this time.

DATES: Send your written comments by December 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional
Authorization Coordinator, (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, at the address shown below. You can examine copies of the
materials submitted by the State of Arkansas during normal business
hours at the following locations: Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality, 8101 Interstate 30, Little Rock, Arkansas 72219-8913, (501)
682-0876, and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER> ; or Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier; please follow the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, please see the
direct final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 22, 2014.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-25725 Filed 10-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46934-46935]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18658]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1484-007
    Applicants: Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.
    Description: Supplement to December 28, 2012 Updated Market Power
Analysis for the Southwest Power Pool Region of Shell Energy North
America (US), L.P.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13
    Accession Number: 20130723-5144
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/13

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1827-001; ER10-1827-002; ER10-1825-002; ER10-
1825-001
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC, Cleco Evangeline LLC
    Description: Responses to Requests for Information of Cleco Power
LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/28/13
    Accession Number: 20130528-5084
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2012-000
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company
    Description: GIA and Distribution Service Agreement with ASE PV
Power of Riverside LLC to be effective 7/25/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/24/13
    Accession Number: 20130724-5001
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2013-000
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
    Description: CCSF IA--42nd Quarterly Filing of Facilities
Agreements to be effective 6/30/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/24/13
    Accession Number: 20130724-5003
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2014-000
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
    Description: KMPUD IA and TFA to be effective 8/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/24/13
    Accession Number: 20130724-5004
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2015-000
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company

    Description: Notice of Termination of KMPUD Engineering Agreement
to be effective 8/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 7/24/13
    Accession Number: 20130724-5005
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2017-000
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
    Description: Cancellation of DEF Rate Schedule No. 193 to be
effective 12/31/2012.
    Filed Date: 7/24/13
    Accession Number: 20130724-5038
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/13

    Docket Numbers: ER13-2018-000
    Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
    Description: Cancellation of DEF Rate Schedule No. 199 to be
effective 12/31/2011.
    Filed Date: 7/24/13
    Accession Number: 20130724-5040
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/14/13

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM13-3-000
    Applicants: Missouri River Energy Services
    Description: Missouri River Energy Services submits Application to
Terminate Mandatory PURPA Purchase Obligation on behalf of itself and
twenty-four of its members.
    Filed Date: 7/23/13
    Accession Number: 20130723-5148
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/20/13

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 24, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18658 Filed 8-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Science Applications International Corporation, 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 MEMORANDUM To: Paul Shriner, Shari Goodwin, and Regno Arulgnanendran From: John Sunda Date: September 28, 2005 Subject: Downtime Duration Input and Analysis of Manufacturing Facilities Introduction As part of the review of downtime durations for Phase III manufacturing facilities, EPA evaluated the methodology used for estimating downtime durations at Proposal. The methodology used at Proposal is similar to the one used in the Phase II rulemaking for electric generators. For the NODA, EPA initially considered the reduction of downtime durations by using various fractions or percentages in downtime duration used at Proposal and analyze the sensitivity of such reductions on the downtime costs. EPA then reviewed in detail the basis for the downtime duration estimates originally developed for electric generators to determine whether these estimates were appropriate for manufacturing facilities and whether the downtime estimates could be revised to reflect site specific features applicable to manufacturers.

Differences in Downtime Duration Between Phase II Electric Generators and Phase III Manufacturing Facilities The methodology used in the Phase II economic analysis for incorporating the costs associated with downtime for the intakes during construction assumed that only a few facilities had an alternative to shutting down. For electric generators that utilize a once through cooling system, the use of cooling water is an integral part of the entire electricity generation process and therefore any reduction in water use will result in a reduction in power generation. Because power plants essentially rely on a single process, a shutdown of the entire process is the most logical solution when the need arises to perform major construction or maintenance operations on any key component of the facility. EPA found that most power plants shut down for about four weeks each year to perform routine maintenance. This provides a window of opportunity for performing modifications on the intakes simultaneously during the shut down period for routine maintenance. Because routine plant shutdown for several weeks was common for power plants, the cost module technology scenarios derived for Phase II electric generators focused on retaining the use of the existing pumping equipment. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Science Applications International Corporation, 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 Unlike electric generators, manufacturing facilities typically involve numerous sequential processes with varying water requirements for the processes and in many cases, additional water requirements for plant electric power and steam generation. Many large manufacturing facilities not only have multiple types of processes, but also have multiple parallel process trains. Maintenance operations for the more complex operations may involve the shutdown of individual process trains or series of trains, but this leaves the remainder of the plant in operation. The sequential processes often have storage capacity for the intermediate products. The ability to store intermediate product facilitates this practice. As such, the need for electricity and process steam tends to be continuous. Because of the wide variety of process arrangements at different manufacturing facilities, there is the potential for wide variations in the frequency and duration of whole facility shutdowns between the various manufacturing sectors. It appears that the larger, more complex manufacturing operations, unlike electric generators, are less likely to schedule simultaneous annual shutdown of all processing units.

Input from Manufacturing Facilities In order to determine what response a Phase III manufacturing facility would have if faced with the potential interruption of intake operations to implement major construction or retrofit of their intakes, six manufacturing facilities were contacted in August 2005. The objective was to inquire about the practices in place at these facilities and the measures they would implement to minimize interruption of the manufacturing processes associated with major construction or retrofitting of their intakes.

The inquiry included questions about the occurrence of scheduled plant shut downs in the past, modifications of plant operations to reduce water use, use of alternate intakes or other sources of cooling water, availability of alternate power sources if most cooling water is used for power generation, and details of implementing major construction or rehabilitation on intakes.

Table 1 provides a summary of the results of the above inquiry along with the facility SIC code. Information obtained previously from two additional manufacturing facilities ( DOW Chemical Co., Freeport, TX and Tosco Refining Co., Rodeo, CA) are also included in Table 1, along with information obtained from an intake technology vendor.

In general, the reported plant shutdown periods ranged from zero downtime for many chemical manufacturers to 30 to 50 days for refineries. However, the refinery downtime occurred less frequently than shutdown for other manufacturing sectors with shutdowns occurring once every four or six years compared to an annual shutdown for other manufacturing sectors. One refinery operator indicated that no downtime has been scheduled in the past. However, the refineries contacted had flexible intake arrangements that would allow major construction to be carried out without incurring any additional unscheduled downtime.

The chemical manufacturers reported that a complete shut down of the entire plant was rare because these facilities provided water to a variety of operations and hence shutting down the intakes completely would be highly problematic. None of the operators would speculate on a potential solution but suggested that an engineering solution, such as installation of an entirely _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Science Applications International Corporation, 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 new intake adjacent to the existing intake, may be sought to minimize the duration of the downtime.

The fact that some facilities would consider an engineering solution instead of a complete shutdown implies that an engineering solution would probably cost less than shutting down the plant for an extended period. Praxair, an industrial gas manufacturing plant, reported an annual shut down for one week, but because the intake pumps withdrew water from a common channel, the facility did not have the flexibility reported by the refineries. The Praxair facility also has a contract to supply intake water to adjacent industrial facilities. As such, chemical manufacturers similar to Praxair with limited flexibility for plant shutdown may opt for an engineering solution, if faced with potential interruption of intake operations, instead of a complete shut down of their plant operations.

Options and Alternatives A solution for a larger intake using technology module 3 ( Addition of a new, larger intake with fine mesh and fish handling and return system in front of an existing intake system) considered under Phase II for electric generators, was to add additional intake capacity adjacent to the existing intake. This would have required the addition of new pumps and the necessity to devise a way to reduce the flow in the old pumps, such as retrofitting the old pumps with variable frequency drives so that flow in each intake could be reduced. This scenario would substantially reduce the downtime requirements because each pump could be retrofitted independently and the new adjacent intake could be constructed while the existing intakes continue to operate. Only the construction step of tying the new intake piping into the existing piping would potentially involve brief downtime duration. However, many electric generators are located in close proximity to urban areas with limited available space in the vicinity of the existing intakes. Hence the construction scenarios for the technology to enlarge the total screen area involved constructing and connecting the new intake technology directly in front of the existing screens rather than adding additional intake capacity adjacent to the existing intake as described above for electric generators. This configuration inevitably results in the need to shut down the entire intake for a period of several weeks or more to make the final connection.

In contrast to electric generators, large manufacturing plants tend to be expansive and such facilities may have available space for alternative technology installation practices. For a Phase III manufacturing facility, depending on the site specific conditions, an approach to retrofit independently with a new adjacent intake being constructed while the existing intakes continue to operate could potentially result in similar or even lower downtime costs compared to the total costs incurred for Phase II electric generating facilities. For certain sectors of manufacturing facilities which do not have scheduled shutdowns for routine maintenance and consequently may incur higher shutdown costs, alternative technology scenarios that include additions and or modifications to the existing pumps may prove to be less costly.

In the case of a refinery, EPA has found that one facility was able to install the equivalent of technology module 4 ( Addition of passive fine mesh screen system ( cylindrical wedgewire) near shoreline with mesh width of 1.75 mm) with no downtime by connecting the new passive screens to each pump one at a time. _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Science Applications International Corporation, 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 TABLE 1. RESULTS OF FACILITY CONTACTS CONCERNING DOWNTIME DURATION AND ALTERNATE SOLUTIONS Facility Name and Location SIC Codes Downtime Frequency Downtime Duration Other Solutions Comments BP Refinery, Toledo, OH 2911 Once every 4 6 years 40 50 days Two intake channels can be retrofitted independently with no downtime. Would modify water use for third smaller intake.

DOW Chemical Co.

( Formerly Union Carbide)

Taft Plant, Hahnville, LA 2869 None NA Would use an engineering solution.

No details of potential solutions or costs were given.

PPG, Lake Charles, LA 2812 2869 2816 None NA Have multiple pump/ screen channels and can work on them independently. Can shut down intakes RS2 & RS3 but shutdown of intakes CRW1 & CRW2 would require shutdown of Chlorine Alkali manufacturing units resulting in $ 2M lost revenue/ day. Adding a new adjacent intake is a possible option. Note that CRW1 &

CRW2 have the highest flow and highest screen velocities.

Tosco Refining Co.,

Bayway, NJ 2911 Once every 4 years 30 days Has two intakes, could alternate between the two except during summer months ( May Oct). Each intake has 4 or 5 separate intake trains, which can be modified independently.

Praxair Inc, Niagara Falls,

NY 2813 Once a year 7 days Pumps draw from common intake well. No easy solution. Also provides water to neighboring industries. In the survey they indicated having 3 intake bays. They have contracted to supply water to adjacent industries. _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Science Applications International Corporation, 11251 Roger Bacon Drive, Reston, VA 20190 Facility Name and Location SIC Codes Downtime Frequency Downtime Duration Other Solutions Comments DOW Chemical Co.,

Freeport, TX 2869 None NA Would use an engineering solution. Survey data suggests only saltwater portion operates continuously.

Pfizer, Groton, CT 2833 None NA Would consider reducing flow to < 50 mgd. Have only one intake no easy solution. Have emergency generators to replace lost power but would still need steam.

Tosco Refining Co., Rodeo,

CA 2911 None scheduled NA They were able to install new Tscreen intakes without downtime.

Johnson Screens Intake ( Technology Vendor) NA NA NA In their experience, facilities with multiple intakes or multiple parallel intake trains are able to work on a portion of the intake system while keeping a part of the intake system still functioning.