Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2011

1 69 FERC ¶ 61,055 (1994).

2Removal of Outdated Regulations Pertaining to

the Sales of Natural Gas Production, 59 FR 40,240

(August 8, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles

¶ 30,999 (July 28, 1994).

3The Designated Parties consist of Amoco Energy

& Trading Corp.; Aquila Energy Marketing Corp.;

Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Hadson Gas Systems, Inc.;

Heartland Energy Services, Inc.; Natural Gas

Clearinghouse; O&R Energy, Inc.; and Texaco, Inc.

FDC date State City Airport FDC No. SIAP

11/30/94 ... PA Harrisburg ............................................. Capital City ........................................... FDC 4/6737 ILS Rwy 8 Amdt 10A.

12/02/94 ... NE North Platte .......................................... North Platte Regional ........................... FDC 4/6750 VOR OR GPS Rwy

35, Amdt 17.

12/02/94 ... NE North Platte .......................................... North Platte Regional ........................... FDC 4/6751 ILS Rwy 30R, Amdt 5.

12/07/94 ... MN Maple Lake ........................................... Maple Lake Muni .................................. FDC 4/6821 VOR–A Amdt 2.

12/07/94 ... OH Cincinnati .............................................. Cincinnati-Blue Ash .............................. FDC 4/6820 NDB OR GPS Rwy 6

ORIG.

12/08/94 ... OR Salem ................................................... Salem/McNary Field ............................. FDC 4/6822 NDB Rwy 31, Amdt

18.

12/08/94 ... OR Salem ................................................... Salem/McNary Field ............................. FDC 4/6823 LOC BC Rwy 12,

Amdt 6.

12/08/94 ... OR Salem ................................................... Salem/McNary Field ............................. FDC 4/6824 ILS Rwy 31, Amdt 27.

12/08/94 ... OR Salem ................................................... Salem/McNary Field ............................. FDC 4/6825 LOC/DME Rwy 31,

Amdt 2.

12/09/94 ... HI Kahului .................................................. Kahului .................................................. FDC 4/6875 ILS Rwy 2 Amdt 22.

12/12/94 ... WY Jackson ................................................ Jackson Hole ........................................ FDC 4/6904 VOR OR GPS–A,

Amdt 6A.

12/12/94 ... WY Jackson ................................................ Jackson Hole ........................................ FDC 4/6905 VOR/DME OR GPS

Rwy 36, Amdt 4.

12/13/94 ... AK Ketchikan .............................................. Ketchikan Intl ........................................ FDC 4/6916 ILS/DME–1, Rwy 11,

Amdt 5C.

12/14/94 ... CT New Haven ........................................... Tweed-New Haven ............................... FDC 4/6944 ILS Rwy 2 Amdt 15.

[FR Doc. 95–355 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Parts 154, 157, 270, 271, 272,

273, 274 and 275

[Docket No. RM94–18–002; Order No. 567–

B]

Removal of Outdated Regulations

Pertaining to the Sales of Natural Gas

Production

Issued December 15, 1994.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission; DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is

issuing an order on rehearing

concerning the deletion of a section of

the Commission’s regulations

implementing the Natural Gas Policy

Act (NGPA). That section provided that

any sale by an affiliate of an interstate

pipeline, intrastate pipeline, or local

distribution company (LDC) is a first

sale under the NGPA unless the

Commission determines not to treat it as

such. The Commission finds that

Congress eliminated the only statutory

basis for defining pipeline and LDC

affiliate marketers as first sellers and

reaffirms the Commission’s finding that,

with the decontrol of wellhead pricing,

no purpose is any longer served by the

anti-circumvention rule deleted by the

Commission’s previous order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 15, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra Elliott, Office of the General

Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 825 North Capitol Street,

NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

0694.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

addition to publishing the full text of

this document in the Federal Register,

the Commission also provides all

interested persons an opportunity to

inspect or copy the contents of this

document during normal business hours

in Room 3308, 941 North Capitol Street,

N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.

The Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin

board service, provides access to the

texts of formal documents issued by the

Commission. CIPS is available at no

charge to the user and may be accessed

using a personal computer with a

modem by dialing (202) 208–1397. To

access CIPS, set your communications

software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600,

7200, 4800, 2400, 1200 or 300bps, full

duplex, no parity, 8 data bits, and 1 stop

bit. The full text of this document will

be available on CIPS for 60 days from

the date of issuance in ASCII and

WordPerfect 5.1 format. After 60 days

the document will be archived, but still

accessible. The complete text on

diskette in WordPerfect format may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, La Dorn Systems

Corporation, also located in Room 3308,

941 North Capitol Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426.

Before Commissioners: Elizabeth Anne

Moler, Chair; Vicky A. Bailey, James J.

Hoecker, William L. Massey, and Donald F.

Santa, Jr.

Order on Rehearing

I. Introduction

This order addresses requests for

rehearing or reconsideration of the

Commission’s October 17, 1994 order 1

on rehearing issued in the above

referenced proceeding. The October 17,

1994 order denied rehearing of the

Commission’s July 28, 1994 final rule

(Order No. 567),2 which, in pertinent

part, deleted section 270.203(c) of the

Commission’s regulations implementing

the NGPA. That section provided that

any sale by an affiliate of an interstate

pipeline, intrastate pipeline, or local

distribution company (LDC) is a first

sale under the NGPA unless the

Commission determines not to treat it as

such. Enron Capital & Trade Resources

Corporation (Enron), Coastal Gas

Marketing Company (Coastal), and

Designated Parties request rehearing.3

The petitioners argue that the

Commission erred and should reinstate

section 270.203(c). For the reasons

discussed below and in the October 17,

1994 order, the Commission denies

rehearing and reconsideration.

II. Background

The Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol

Act of 1989 (Decontrol Act) eliminated
2012 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

4Pipeline and LDC marketing affiliates only

become subject to the blanket certificate to the

extent they sell natural gas for resale in interstate

commerce. Thus, a direct sale or a sale in intrastate

commerce would not be covered by the blanket

certificate since the Natural Gas Act does not

otherwise apply to such sales.

5Citing Westar Transmission Co., 43 FERC

¶ 61,050 (1988) and Texas Utilities Fuel Co., 44

FERC ¶ 61,171 (1988).

as of January 1, 1993, all maximum

lawful prices for first sales of natural

gas. Order No. 567 removed from the

Commission’s regulations various

regulations that the Commission

considered obsolete or nonessential in

light of the decontrol of first sale prices.

These included the § 270.203(c)

definition of a first sale. On October 17,

1994, the Commission issued the subject

order which denied rehearing of Order

No. 567.

In the October 17, 1994 order, on

rehearing of Order No. 567, in response

to objections directed at the removal of

§ 270.203(c), the Commission upheld its

action, finding that, in light of wellhead

decontrol, no purpose would be served

by § 270.203(c). That section was

originally adopted pursuant to the

Commission’s authority under NGPA

section 2(21)(A)(v) to define, as a first

sale, any sale that does not otherwise

qualify under NGPA section 2(21) as a

first sale ‘‘in order to prevent

circumvention of any maximum lawful

price established under this Act.’’ The

Commission held that circumvention of

maximum lawful prices cannot be a

concern when there are no maximum

lawful prices to circumvent. The

Commission also found that the removal

of that section had no substantive

impact on the rights of the parties since,

at present, there is no practical

difference between operating under the

blanket marketer sales certificate (to

which affiliated marketers may became

subject as a result of the removal of that

section 4) and treatment as a

nonjurisdictional first seller. Finally, the

Commission rejected arguments that the

Commission violated the Administrative

Procedures Act’s (APA) notice and

comment requirements.

III. Arguments on Rehearing

On rehearing, Enron first asserts that,

by retaining NGA jurisdiction over

affiliate sales, the Commission is acting

in contravention of its own promarketing policies as well as those of

Congress stated in the Wellhead

Decontrol Act. Enron asserts that the

Commission appears to acknowledge

only that its action will affect interstate

pipeline affiliates, whereas it also affects

marketing affiliates of intrastate

pipelines and LDCs. Further, it argues

that this returns to the bifurcated system

of jurisdiction of sales for resale, but not

of direct sales, that led to gas shortages

in the 1970’s. Further, it asserts that the

legislative history of the Wellhead

Decontrol Act is rife with statements

that indicate Congress’ intent to remove

all vestiges of natural gas price control.

It asserts that Congress only intended to

continue NGA jurisdiction of interstate

pipelines and, in response to the

reasoning of the October 17, 1994 order,

queries of what purpose will be served

by continuing the appearance of

regulation, rather than meaningful

regulation. Second, Enron asserts that

nonjurisdictional marketers have a

competitive advantage over marketing

affiliates who make sales for resale in

interstate commerce, because marketing

affiliates are subject to regulatory

uncertainty. It submits that this

uncertainty increases market risks and

impedes the ability of marketing

affiliates to obtain financing and plan

transactions. Finally, Enron argues that

the substantive impact of the removal of

§ 270.203(c) required the Commission to

give parties advance notice and the

opportunity to comment under the APA.

It maintains that the Commission has

broad rulemaking authority under

section 501 of the NGPA to reinstate

section 270.203(c).

In their request for rehearing, in

addition to a number of arguments

similar to those made by Enron,

Designated Parties contest the

Commission’s position that the change

to light-handed regulation has no

substantive impact on the rights of the

parties. They assert that regulation

diminishes the attractiveness of natural

gas as a fuel for power generation

projects because regulation may

adversely affect the availability or cost

of financing such projects. They assert

that regulation tends to adversely affect

the ability of parties ‘‘to monetize the

asset represented by accounts receivable

under long-term supply agreements’’

due to the risk of changes in contract

pricing or other terms pursuant to the

Commission’s NGA section 5 authority.

They assert, like Enron, that regulation

resurrects the bifurcated regulation/nonregulation system and allegedly gives

nonjurisdictional marketers an

advantage. Finally, they assert that, in

certain cases,5 some intrastate pipelines

may lose their non-jurisdictional status

under Title IV of the NGPA as a result

of the Commission’s action which may

have a ‘‘ripple’’ effect as intrastate

entities take contractual action to

protect themselves from regulation.

Finally, they argue that the Commission

has failed to recognize that Title VI of

the NGPA coordinates the NGA and

NGPA and defines the boundaries of the

Commission’s jurisdiction, contrary to

the Commission’s ruling.

Designated Parties also allege that the

Commission violated APA and NGPA

notice and comment requirements by

leaving the parties to seek rehearing.

They argue that Order No. 567 gave no

notice of the reasoning behind the

elimination of the regulation and,

hence, this rehearing is the first real

opportunity the parties have had to

respond to the Commission’s order.

They argue that the Commission failed

to adequately justify its finding of ‘‘good

cause’’ to dispense with the APA

procedures for the reason that the

instant situation does not fall into the

kind of situations where action is

required immediately. Further, they

assert that the Commission’s finding

that the APA procedures were

unnecessary was in error for the same

reason, as asserted above, that the

Commission’s action did have a

substantive effect on the parties. They

also observe that section 502(b) of the

NGPA provides that an opportunity for

oral presentations is to be made

available ‘‘to the maximum extent

practicable.’’ Accordingly, they ask that

the Commission stay the effect of its

order and institute new rulemaking

procedures on this issue.

Coastal contends that the Commission

erred in finding no substantive effect of

its decision and in failing to provide

notice and comment. It asserts that the

number of comments might have been

greater than those received on rehearing

had the Commission not issued a final

rule at the outset.

IV. Discussion

For the reasons discussed below and

in the October 17, 1994 order, the

Commission finds that the petitioners

have raised no new arguments that

warrant any change in the Commission’s

action on this issue. Accordingly, the

Commission denies the requests for

rehearing or reconsideration.

A. The Authority of the Commission To

Define First Sales

The Commission continues to believe

that the deletion of § 270.203(c) was

appropriate for the reasons stated in the

October 17, 1994 order. The Decontrol

Act has eliminated all maximum lawful

prices applicable to first sales. As we

observed in our October 17, 1994 order,

no purpose is served any longer by our

exercising our authority under NGPA

section 2(21)(A)(v) to define additional

categories of sales as first sales ‘‘in order

to prevent circumvention of any

maximum lawful price established
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 2013

6Enron’s rehearing request at page 5.

7Request for Rehearing or Reconsideration of

Enron at p. 5 (citing NGPA Conference Report at pp.

8–9).

8NGPA Section 501(a) provides that the

Commission may issue ‘‘rules and orders as it may

find necessary or appropriate to carry out its

functions under this Act.’’

under this Act.’’ The rehearing

petitioners have not disputed our

finding that circumvention of maximum

lawful prices cannot be a concern when

there are no maximum lawful prices to

circumvent. The Commission would

exceed its authority under the NGPA if

it defined categories of first sales for

reasons other than to prevent

circumvention of maximum lawful

prices.

Accordingly, for the same reason,

petitioners’ arguments regarding

Congressional intent in passing the

Decontrol Act are unpersuasive. It is not

the Commission’s action which causes

the pipeline and LDC affiliates’ sales for

resale to be subject to our NGA

jurisdiction. It was passage of the

Decontrol Act which changed the first

sale status of affiliate sales for resale.

The Decontrol Act repealed the

maximum lawful price provisions of

Title I of the NGPA but did not revise

the definition of first sales in section

2(21) of the NGPA. The legislative

history cited by Enron indicates the

intent of Congress that the definition of

first sale in section 2(21) still be given

full effect. However, that definition

includes the delineation of the

Commission’s authority under section

2(21)(A)(v) to add categories of sales to

the first sale definition.6 That part of

section 2(21) grants discretionary

authority to the Commission to add

categories of sales to the first sale

definition in only one narrow

circumstance: to prevent circumvention

of NGPA maximum lawful prices,

which no longer exist as a result of the

Wellhead Decontrol Act.

Enron tries to bolster its argument on

Congressional intent by claiming that

the use of the term ‘‘wellhead’’ in the

NGPA and Decontrol Act is a misnomer

and that the scope of both acts is much

broader than the production area

market. Thus, it argues, when the

Congress explained that Commission

jurisdiction over interstate pipeline

sales for resale was to be unaffected by

the Wellhead Decontrol Act,7 it can be

inferred that Congress thereby meant to

indicate that all other sales for resale

were to remain first sales. We do not

interpret the cited reaffirmation of the

Commission’s NGA jurisdiction over

pipeline sales for resale, on which

Enron relies, to create an exclusion from

NGA jurisdiction relative to all other

sales not therein mentioned. The effect

of the Decontrol Act on the NGPA is

more properly based on the plain terms

of the relevant sections of the statutes as

enacted and express statements of intent

in the Congressional reports, and we

find nothing there to support Enron’s

proposed inference.

Designated Parties maintain that, in

finding no substantive effect of its rule,

the Commission failed to recognize the

role of Title VI of the NGPA providing

for the coordination of the NGPA with

the NGA. However, all that Title VI and,

in particular, section 601(a) of the

NGPA provides is that the

Commission’s jurisdiction under the

NGA does not apply to first sales.

Accordingly, that section says nothing

of relevance to the issue addressed here

regarding what sales are first sales.

The petitioners also assert that the

Commission has broad rulemaking

authority under section 501 of the

NGPA to reinstate § 270.203(c).8 We do

not agree. The Commission’s authority

to define terms used in the NGPA,

including first sales, is limited. Section

501(b) of the NGPA states, ‘‘Any such

definition shall be consistent with the

definitions set forth in this Act.’’ For the

Commission to define first sales for

purposes other than circumvention

would be inconsistent with the

definition of first sales established by

Congress in section 2(21) of the NGPA.

The Commission cannot exceed the

authority granted to it by the statute in

performance of its duties.

We also reject the suggestion that the

October 17, 1994 order erred in finding

that no competitive disadvantage for

marketing affiliates would arise from no

longer treating marketing affiliate sales

for resale in interstate commerce as first

sales. As the October 17 order stated,

Order No. 547 issued blanket certificates

under NGA section 7 to all persons

making sales of gas for resale in

interstate commerce who are not

interstate pipelines. Thus, the blanket

certificates apply to all affiliated

marketers who make sales for resale in

interstate commerce, whether affiliated

with an interstate pipeline or with an

intrastate pipeline or LDC. Those

certificates allow the affiliated

marketers to operate exactly as if they

were nonjurisdictional first sellers.

Marketers making sales under the

blanket certificate may make sales to

whomever they choose at any price they

can negotiate; no Commission

authorization of any kind is required

beyond the blanket marketer certificate

itself. In short, the blanket marketer

certificates place all marketers on an

equal competitive footing by effectively

eliminating the distinctions in treatment

that formerly existed between

jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional

marketers.

Petitioners have not provided any

evidence to support their contention of

an adverse effect from the removal of

the § 270.203(c) first sale definition.

Moreover, any change in the blanket

marketer certificate would entail a new

rulemaking proceeding in which parties

would have a full opportunity for notice

and comment. Any supportable

economic harm could be raised at that

time.

In any event, Petitioners’ contentions

concerning the negative effect on

marketing affiliates of subjecting their

sales for resale to the Commission’s

NGA jurisdiction are essentially policy

arguments that should have been

directed to Congress. The Commission

does not have the ability to expand the

authority granted it by Congress, even if

arguably there are valid policy reasons

for reinstating § 270.203(c).

B. Procedure

Rehearing applicants contend that the

Commission failed to satisfy the

requirements of the APA and section

502 of the NGPA by removing

§ 270.203(c) without notice and

comment. The notice and comment

issue was fully addressed in the October

17, 1994 order and we will not repeat

that discussion here. With one

exception, the petitioners essentially

make the same arguments which were

rejected in the October 17, 1994 order.

The one new contention is that

section 502 of the NGPA requires the

Commission to give an opportunity for

oral argument. Section 502(b) provides

that, ‘‘to the maximum extent

practicable,’’ an opportunity for oral

presentation shall be provided with

respect to any proposed rule. Section

502(b) does not provide for an absolute

right to make an oral presentation, and

the Commission has the discretion to

rely on written comments if its appears

that no purpose would be served by

establishing oral argument. In

particular, we believe the Commission

is not required to provide an

opportunity for oral presentations in the

instant case where the Commission is

acting on a statutory mandate for which

there is no other course of action

authorized and there currently is no

practical difference in treatment of the

affected companies after, as opposed to

before, elimination of the subject

regulation. In any event, petitioners’

central claim is for the Commission to

start the rulemaking process principally

in order to make written comments. We
2014 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

believe the petitioners have exhausted

their lines of argument in their

rehearing requests and nothing would

be gained by delaying the effect of our

action in order to proceed with a

different administrative vehicle to arrive

at the same result.

The Commission Orders

The requests for rehearing and

reconsideration are denied as discussed

in the body of this order.

By the Commission.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–321 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 5

Delegations of Authority and

Organization; Center for Devices and

Radiological Health

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) is amending the

regulations for delegations of authority

in order to redelegate authorities

relating to determining the classification

of devices first marketed after May 28,

1976, to additional officials in the

Center for Devices and Radiological

Health (CDRH).

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 6, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph M. Sheehan, Center for Devices

and Radiological Health (HFZ–84),

Food and Drug Administration, 2098

Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850,

301–594–4765, or

Ellen R. Rawlings, Division of

Management Systems and Policy

(HFA–340), Food and Drug

Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,

Rockville, MD 20857, 301–443–4976.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is

amending § 5.51 Determination of

classification of devices (21 CFR 5.51)

by extending the authority in

§ 5.51(b)(1) to determine the

classification of a medical device first

intended for commercial distribution

after May 28, 1976, pursuant to section

513(f)(1)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug,

and Cosmetic Act, to Deputy Division

Directors, Associate Division Directors,

and Branch Chiefs, Office of Device

Evaluation, CDRH. The expanded

delegation will ensure greater efficiency

in making these classification decisions.

Further redelegation of the authority

delegated is not authorized at this time.

Authority delegated to a position by title

may be exercised by a person officially

designated to serve in such position in

an acting capacity or on a temporary

basis.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 5

Authority delegations (Government

agencies), Imports, Organization and

functions (Government agencies).

PART 5—DELEGATIONS OF

AUTHORITY AND ORGANIZATION

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 5 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 504, 552, App. 2; 7

U.S.C. 138a, 2271; 15 U.S.C. 638, 1261–1282,

3701–3711a; secs. 2–12 of the Fair Packaging

and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451–1461); 21

U.S.C. 41–50, 61–63, 141–149, 467f, 679(b),

801–886, 1031–1309; secs. 201–903 of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21

U.S.C. 321–394); 35 U.S.C. 156; secs. 301,

302, 303, 307, 310, 311, 351, 352, 354, 361,

362, 1701–1706, 2101, 2125, 2127, 2128 of

the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241,

242, 242a, 242l, 242n, 243, 262, 263, 263b,

264, 265, 300u–300u–5, 300aa–1, 300aa–25,

300aa–27, 300aa–28); 42 U.S.C. 1395y,

3246b, 4332, 4831(a), 10007–10008; E.O.

11490, 11921, and 12591; secs. 312, 313, 314

of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act

of 1986, Pub. L. 99–660 (42 U.S.C. 300aa–1

note).

2. Section 5.51 is amended by revising

paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

§ 5.51 Determination of classification of

devices.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) The Director and Deputy Director,

CDRH, and the Director, Deputy

Director, Associate Director, Chief of the

Premarket Notification Section, Division

and Deputy Division Directors,

Associate Division Directors, and

Branch Chiefs, Office of Device

Evaluation, CDRH.

* * * * *

Dated: December 29, 1994.

William K. Hubbard,

Interim Deputy Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 95–359 Filed 1–5–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[LA–13–1–6389; FRL–5125–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan: Louisiana

Emission Statement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action approves a

revision to the Louisiana State

Implementation Plan (SIP) to include

revisions to the Louisiana Department of

Environmental Quality (LDEQ)

Regulation Title 33, Part III, Chapter 9,

General Regulations on Control of

Emissions and Emission Standards,

Section 919, Emission Inventory. These

revisions are for the purpose of

implementing an emission statement

program for stationary sources within

the ozone nonattainment areas. The

implementation plan was submitted by

the State to satisfy the Federal

requirements for an emission statement

program as part of the SIP for Louisiana.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is

effective on February 6, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations. Interested persons wanting to

examine these documents should make

an appointment with the appropriate

office at least 24 hours before the

visiting day.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Air Programs Branch (6TAP), 1445 Ross Avenue, suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, 401 M Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20460

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality, Air Quality Division, 7290

Bluebonnet, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

70810.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Herbert R. Sherrow, Jr., Planning

Section (6T-AP), Air Programs Branch,

USEPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, Telephone

(214) 655–7237.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The air quality planning and SIP

requirements for ozone nonattainment

and transport areas are set out in

subparts I and II of part D of title I of

the Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’),