[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 182 (Thursday, September 23, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52864-52870]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20349]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0428; FRL-8911-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; TN; Montgomery County Limited Maintenance Plan
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC), Air Pollution Control Division, on June 23, 2020.
The SIP revision includes the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP) for the
Montgomery County, Tennessee portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville
Area (hereinafter referred to as the ``Montgomery County Area'' or
``Area''). The Clarksville-Hopkinsville Area is comprised of Montgomery
County, Tennessee, and Christian County, Kentucky. EPA is proposing to
approve Tennessee's LMP for the Montgomery County Area because it
provides for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the
Montgomery County Area through the end of the second 10-year portion of
the maintenance period. The effect of this action would be to make
certain commitments related to maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Montgomery County Area federally enforceable as part of
the Tennessee SIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 25, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0428 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah LaRocca, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-8994. Ms. LaRocca can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
II. Background
III. Tennessee's SIP Submittal
IV. EPA's Evaluation of Tennessee's SIP Submittal
    A. Attainment Emissions Inventory
    B. Maintenance Demonstration
    C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    D. Contingency Plan
    E. Conclusion
V. Transportation Conformity
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action

    In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), EPA is proposing
to approve the Montgomery County Area LMP for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, adopted by TDEC on June 10, 2020, and submitted by TDEC as a
revision to the Tennessee SIP on June 23, 2020. In 2004, the Montgomery
County Area was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Subsequently, in 2005, after having clean data and EPA's
approval of a maintenance plan, the Area was redesignated to attainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 70 FR 55559 (September 22, 2005).
    The Montgomery County Area LMP, submitted by TDEC on June 23, 2020,
is designed to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within the
Montgomery County Area through the end of the second 10-year portion of
the maintenance period beyond redesignation. EPA is proposing to
approve the plan because it meets all applicable requirements under CAA
sections 110 and 175A.
    As a general matter, the Montgomery County Area LMP relies on the
same

control measures and contingency provisions to maintain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS during the second 10-year portion of the maintenance period
as the maintenance plan submitted by TDEC for the first 10-year period.

II. Background

    Ground-level ozone is formed when oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) react in the
presence of sunlight. These two pollutants, referred to as ozone
precursors, are emitted by many types of pollution sources, including
on- and off-road motor vehicles and engines, power plants and
industrial facilities, and smaller area sources such as lawn and garden
equipment and paints. Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public
health effects occur following exposure to ozone, particularly in
children and in adults with lung disease. Breathing air containing
ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can increase
respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma and other lung diseases.
    Ozone exposure also has been associated with increased
susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication use, doctor
visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for
individuals with lung disease. Children are at increased risk from
exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing and they are
more likely to be active outdoors, which increases their exposure.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Fact Sheet, Proposal to Revise the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone,'' January 6, 2010 and 27 FR 2938
(January 19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18,
1997, EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone to set the
acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm, averaged over
an 8-hour period. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\2\ EPA set the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone
causes adverse health effects at lower concentrations and over longer
periods of time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone
NAAQS was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour NAAQS would be more
protective of human health, especially children and adults who are
active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory
disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened them further by lowering the
level for both to 0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone NAAQS and tightened them by lowering the level
for both to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required
by the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 15, 2004, EPA designated the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville Area, which included Montgomery County, Tennessee, and
Christian County, Kentucky, as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, and the designation became effective on June 15, 2004. See 69 FR
23858 (April 30, 2004). Similarly, on May 21, 2012, EPA designated
areas as unclassifiable/attainment or nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA designated Montgomery County as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This designation became
effective on July 20, 2012. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). In
addition, on November 16, 2017, areas were designated for the 2015 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The Montgomery County Area was designated attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with an effective date
of January 16, 2018. See 82 FR 54232 (November 16, 2017).
    A state may submit a request to redesignate a nonattainment area
that is attaining a NAAQS to attainment, and, if the area has met other
required criteria described in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, EPA may
approve the redesignation request.\3\ One of the criteria for
redesignation is to have an approved maintenance plan under CAA section
175A. The maintenance plan must demonstrate that the area will continue
to maintain the NAAQS for the period extending ten years after
redesignation, and it must contain such additional measures as
necessary to ensure maintenance and such contingency provisions as
necessary to assure that violations of the NAAQS will be promptly
corrected. Eight years after the effective date of redesignation, the
state must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the NAAQS for an additional ten years pursuant to CAA
section 175A(b) (i.e., ensuring maintenance for 20 years after
redesignation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA sets out the requirements
for redesignating a nonattainment area to attainment. They include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval of the applicable SIP
pursuant to CAA section 110(k), determination that improvement in
air quality is a result of permanent and enforceable reductions in
emissions, demonstration that the state has met all applicable
section 110 and part D requirements, and a fully approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has published long-standing guidance for states on developing
maintenance plans.\4\ The Calcagni memo provides that states may
generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing air quality
modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will
not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that projected future
emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at page 9. EPA clarified
in three subsequent guidance memos that certain areas could meet the
CAA section 175A requirement to provide for maintenance by showing that
the area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS in the future, using
information such as the area's design value \5\ being significantly
below the standard and the area having a historically stable design
value.\6\ EPA refers to a maintenance plan containing this streamlined
demonstration as an LMP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division,
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS),
``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' September 4, 1992 (Calcagni memo).
    \5\ The ozone design value for a monitoring site is the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentrations. The design value for an ozone area is the
highest design value of any monitoring site in the area.
    \6\ See ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable
Ozone Nonattainment Areas,'' from Sally L. Shaver, OAQPS, November
16, 1994; ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas,'' from Joseph Paisie, OAQPS, October 6, 1995;
and ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10
Nonattainment Areas,'' from Lydia Wegman, OAQPS, August 9, 2001.
Copies of these guidance memoranda can be found in the docket for
this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has interpreted CAA section 175A as permitting the LMP option
because section 175A of the Act does not define how areas may
demonstrate maintenance, and in EPA's experience implementing the
various NAAQS, areas that qualify for an LMP and have approved LMPs
have rarely, if ever, experienced subsequent violations of the NAAQS.
As noted in the LMP guidance memoranda, states seeking an LMP must
still submit the other maintenance plan elements outlined in the
Calcagni memo, including: An attainment emissions inventory, provisions
for the continued operation of the ambient air quality monitoring
network, verification of continued attainment, and a contingency plan
in the event of a future violation of the NAAQS. Moreover, a state
seeking an

LMP must still submit its section 175A maintenance plan as a revision
to its SIP, with all attendant notice and comment procedures. While the
LMP guidance memoranda were originally written with respect to certain
NAAQS,\7\ EPA has extended the LMP interpretation of section 175A to
other NAAQS and pollutants not specifically covered by the previous
guidance memos.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The prior memos addressed: Unclassifiable areas under the 1-
hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment areas for the PM10
(particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10
microns) NAAQS, and nonattainment for the carbon monoxide (CO)
NAAQS.
    \8\ See, e.g., 79 FR 41900 (July 18, 2014) (approval of the
second ten-year LMP for the Grant County 1971 SO2
maintenance area).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this case, EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's LMP because
the State has made a showing, consistent with EPA's prior LMP guidance,
that the Clarksville-Hopkinsville Area's ozone concentrations are well
below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have been historically stable and
that it has met the other maintenance plan requirements. TDEC submitted
this LMP for the Montgomery County Area to fulfill the second
maintenance plan requirement in the Act. EPA's evaluation of the
Montgomery County Area's LMP is presented below.
    In August of 2005, TDEC submitted to EPA a request to redesignate
the Montgomery County Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This submittal included a plan to provide for maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Montgomery County through 2016 as a revision
to the Tennessee SIP. EPA approved the Montgomery County Area's
Maintenance Plan and the State's request to redesignate the Montgomery
County Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective
November 21, 2005. See 70 FR 55559 (September 22, 2005).
    Under CAA section 175A(b), states must submit a revision to the
first maintenance plan eight years after redesignation to provide for
maintenance of the NAAQS for ten additional years following the end of
the first 10-year period. EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and stated that
one consequence of revocation was that areas that had been redesignated
to attainment (i.e., maintenance areas) for the 1997 NAAQS no longer
needed to submit second 10-year maintenance plans under CAA section
175A(b). See 80 FR 12264, 12315 (March 6, 2015).
    In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) vacated the EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, second maintenance plans
were not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' i.e., areas that
had been redesignated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
maintenance areas and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. South Coast, 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Thus, states with
these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
must submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance period.
Accordingly, on June 23, 2020, Tennessee submitted a second maintenance
plan for the Montgomery County Area that shows that the Area is
expected to remain in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through
2025.
    In recognition of the continuing record of air quality monitoring
data showing ambient 8-hour ozone concentrations in the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville Area well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, TDEC chose
the LMP option for the development of a second 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
maintenance plan. On June 10, 2020, TDEC adopted the second 10-year
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan, and on June 23, 2020, TDEC
submitted the Montgomery County Area LMP to EPA as a revision to the
Tennessee SIP.

III. Tennessee's SIP Submittal

    As mentioned above, on June 23, 2020, TDEC submitted the Montgomery
County Area 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS LMP to EPA as a revision to the
Tennessee SIP. The submittal includes the LMP, air quality data,
emissions inventory information, and appendices, as well as
certification of adoption of the plan by TDEC. Appendices to the plan
include comments and responses between EPA and TDEC; documentation of
notice, hearing, and public participation prior to adoption of the plan
by the TDEC on June 10, 2020; interagency consultation; and Air
Pollution Control Board order, which notes that Tennessee's LMP
submittal for the remainder of the 20-year maintenance period for the
for the Montgomery County Area is in response to the D.C. Circuit's
decision overturning aspects of EPA's implementation rule for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Montgomery County Area LMP does not include any
additional emissions reduction measures but relies on the same emission
reduction strategy as the first 10-year Maintenance Plan that provides
for maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2016. The measures upon
which the second 10-year LMP for the Montgomery County Area relies
include the SIP-approved version of Tennessee Air Pollution Control
Regulation 1200-03-27-.12, NOX SIP Call Requirements for
Stationary Boilers and Combustion Turbines, which established a state
control program for sources that are subject to the NOX SIP
Call but not covered under Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR).\9\
The LMP also relies on continued implementation of federal measures
(e.g., interstate transport rules such as CSAPR, see 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011), and the CSAPR Update, see 81 FR 74504 (October 26,
2016)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 86 FR 12092 (March 2, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Evaluation of Tennessee's SIP Submittal

    EPA has reviewed the Montgomery County Area's LMP which is designed
to maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within Montgomery County
through the end of the 20-year period beyond redesignation, as required
under CAA section 175A(b). The following is a summary of EPA's
interpretation of the section 175A requirements \10\ and EPA's
evaluation of how each requirement is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Calcagni memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    For maintenance plans, a state should develop a comprehensive,
accurate inventory of actual emissions for an attainment year to
identify the level of emissions which is sufficient to maintain the
NAAQS. A state should develop this inventory consistent with EPA's most
recent guidance on emissions inventory development. For ozone, the
inventory should be based on typical summer day emissions of VOCs and
NOX, as these pollutants are precursors to ozone formation.
The Montgomery County Area LMP includes an ozone attainment inventory
for Montgomery County that reflects typical summer day emissions in
2014. Table 1 presents a summary of the inventory for 2014 contained in
the LMP.

     Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day 8-Hour Ozone Emissions for the
                         Montgomery County Area
                            [Tons/summer day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX emissions
             Source category               VOC emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire....................................          * 0.00          * 0.00
Nonpoint................................            8.79            0.90
Nonroad.................................            1.58            1.35
Onroad..................................            4.76            7.64
Point...................................            0.97            0.50
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................         * 16.10           10.39
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This Total VOC Emissions value differs from Tennessee's submittal and
  has been re-calculated by TDEC to accurately reflect the total VOC
  emissions for Montgomery County.\11\

    The Emissions Inventory section of the Montgomery County Area's LMP
describes the methods, models, and assumptions used to develop the
attainment inventory. As described in the Emissions Inventory section
of the LMP, TDEC generally relied upon emissions inventory information
from the EPA 2014 version 7.0 air quality modeling platform (2014v7.0
platform), which is based on the 2014 NEI. The emissions data in the
2014v7.0 platform are primarily based on the 2014NEIv1 for point
sources, nonpoint sources, commercial marine vessels (CMV), onroad and
nonroad mobile sources, and fires. This 2014 modeling platform includes
all criteria air pollutants (CAPs) and precursors and two groups of
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See email from James Johnston, TDEC, to Lynorae Benjamin,
EPA Region 4, on December 15, 2020, available in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonroad mobile source emissions in the 2014NEIv1, in part, were
estimated using the latest version of the EPA's motor vehicle emissions
model, MOVES 2014a (which includes estimates of nonroad emissions like
agriculture, commercial and mining, industrial and recreational
equipment, and commercial and residential lawn and garden equipment).
Locomotives, aircraft, and marine nonroad sources are not included in
MOVES, and TDEC relied on EPA-generated emissions for these
sectors.\12\ Onroad mobile sources in the 2014NEIv1 were estimated
using MOVES 2014a and the latest planning assumptions regarding vehicle
type, activity, and vehicle speeds to estimate vehicular emissions for
2014. MOVES2014a was used with inputs, where provided, by state and
local agencies, in combination with EPA-generated default data. In its
entirety, the 2014v7.0 platform's set of estimates for vehicles
reflects emissions inventories and ancillary data files used for
emissions modeling, as well as the meteorological, initial condition,
and boundary condition files needed to run the air quality model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA developed emissions for these sectors based on AP-42
emissions factor, and information supplied by the Eastern Regional
Technical Advisory Committee for locomotives and Federal Aviation
Administration's Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (since
replaced by the Aviation Environmental Design Tool).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    The maintenance demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied in an LMP if the state can provide sufficient weight of
evidence indicating that air quality in the area is well below the
level of the NAAQS, that past air quality trends have been shown to be
stable, and that the probability of the area experiencing a violation
over the second 10-year maintenance period is low.\13\ These criteria
are evaluated below with regard to the Clarksville-Hopkinsville Area as
a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See footnote 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Evaluation of Ozone Air Quality Levels
    To attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations
(design value) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm.
Based on the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix
I, the NAAQS is attained if the design value is 0.084 ppm or below.
There is currently one monitor measuring ozone, located within
Christian County, Kentucky, which provides air quality data for the
entire Clarksville-Hopkinsville Area. At the time of submission, EPA
evaluated quality assured and certified 2016-2018 monitoring data \14\
and determined that the design value for the Clarksville-Hopkinsville
Area was 0.060 ppm, or 71 percent of the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Based on quality assured and certified monitoring data for 2018-
2020,\15\ the current design value for the Clarksville-Hopkinsville
Area is 0.058 ppm, or 69 percent of the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Consistent with prior guidance, EPA believes that if the most
recent air quality design value for the area is at a level that is well
below the NAAQS (e.g., below 85 percent of the NAAQS, or in this case,
below 0.071 ppm), then EPA considers the state to have met the section
175A requirement for a demonstration that the area will maintain the
NAAQS for the requisite period. Such a demonstration assumes continued
applicability of prevention of significant deterioration requirements
and any control measures already in the SIP and that Federal measures
will remain in place through the end of the second 10-year maintenance
period, absent a showing consistent with section 110(l) that such
measures are not necessary to assure maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See the spreadsheet titled ``Ozone Design Values, 2018
(XLXS)'' at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
    \15\ See the spreadsheet titled ``Ozone Design Values, 2020
(XLXS)'' at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tables 2a and 2b present the design values for the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville Area over the 2007-2020 period. As shown in Tables 2a and
2b, the Hopkinsville monitor has been well below the level of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS since the Area was redesignated to attainment, and
the most current design value is below the level of 85 percent of the
NAAQS, consistent with prior LMP guidance.

 Table 2a--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Design Values (ppm) at the Monitoring Site in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY Area for the 2007-2013 Time Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           AQS Site    2005-2007   2006-2008   2007-2009   2008-2010   2009-2011   2010-2012   2011-2013
           Location                  County        State      ID          DV          DV          DV          DV          DV          DV          DV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopkinsville..................  Christian.......      KY  21-047-000       0.081       0.078     * 0.074       0.069       0.070       0.073       0.069
                                                                   6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 2b--1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS Design Values (ppm) at the Monitoring Site in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY Area for the 2014-2020 Time Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           AQS Site    2012-2014   2013-2015   2014-2016   2015-2017   2016-2018   2017-2019   2018-2020
           Location                  County        State      ID          DV          DV          DV          DV          DV          DV          DV
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopkinsville..................  Christian.......      KY  21-047-000       0.067       0.063       0.062       0.061       0.060       0.058       0.058
                                                                   6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Hopkinsville, KY site (AQS ID: 21-047-0006) was operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) until 2008. In 2008, the Kentucky Division for
  Air Quality began operation of an ozone monitor at the site (designated in AQS as Parameter Occurrence Code (POC) 2), and TVA discontinued operation
  of its POC 1 ozone monitor at the end of 2008. Both monitors met completeness requirements for the years that they operated during 2007-2009. AQS does
  not combine data from different POCs when calculating a design value for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS. However, to accurately present the data in the Table, a
  2007-2009 design value was calculated using the combined datasets from the TVA and KY monitors. In 2008, when both monitors collected complete data,
  the KY monitor data was used because it is flagged as certified in AQS, while the 2008 TVA data is not. The combined 2007-2009 DV using 2007 data from
  the TVA monitor and 2008-2009 data from the KY monitor is 74 parts per billion and is shown in the Table.

    Therefore, the Montgomery County Area is eligible for the LMP
option, and EPA proposes to find that the long record of monitored
ozone concentrations that attain the NAAQS, together with the
continuation of existing VOC and NOx emissions control programs,
adequately provide for the maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
in Montgomery County through the second 10-year maintenance period and
beyond.
    Additional supporting information that the Area is expected to
continue to maintain the NAAQS can be found in projections of future
year design values that EPA recently completed to assist states with
development of interstate transport SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\16\
Those projections, made for the year 2023, show that the highest design
value in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville Area is expected to be 0.056 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See the spreadsheet titled ``Ozone Monitoring Site Design
Values for 2008 through 2017 and for 2023'' at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Stability of Ozone Levels
    As discussed above, the Montgomery County Area has maintained air
quality well below the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS over the past thirteen
years. Additionally, the design value data shown within Tables 2a and
2b illustrates that ozone levels have been relatively stable over this
timeframe, with an overall downward trend. For example, the data within
Tables 2a and 2b indicates that the largest year over year change in
design value at any one monitor during these thirteen years was five
parts per billion which occurred between the 2007-2009 design value and
the 2008-2010 design value, and it represented only a six percent
change. Furthermore, the overall trend in design values for the
Clarksville-Hopkinsville Area between 2007-2020 shows a decrease of 23
parts per billion at the Hopkinsville monitor (AQS Site ID 21-047-
0006). This downward trend in ozone levels, coupled with the relatively
small, year-over-year variation in ozone design values, makes it
reasonable to conclude that Montgomery County Area will not exceed the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the second 10-year maintenance period.
3. Projected Emissions
    Although under the LMP option there is no requirement to project
emissions over the maintenance period, TDEC included an analysis of
ozone precursor emissions trends expected over the course of the second
10-year maintenance period. TDEC provided a VOC and NOx emissions
trends analysis from 2014 to 2028. Tennessee selected 2014 as a
baseline for the projection because that is the most recent year for
which a complete set of data was available from EPA's National
Emissions Inventory (NEI) database at the time the State developed its
second maintenance plan for the Area.\17\ Projected emissions data for
the year 2028 were obtained from EPA,\18\ and these data represent EPA
emissions projections that are available for a date furthest out into
the future.\19\ The emissions projection trends show that between 2014
and 2028, VOC emissions are estimated to fall by approximately 43
percent, and NOx emissions are estimated to fall by approximately 56
percent within the Montgomery County Area. These projected declining
emissions trends further support the conclusion that it is unlikely
that the Area would violate the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the future.
Table 3 presents a summary of projected emissions for 2028 contained in
the maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The 2017 NEI is the most recent NEI, but it was unavailable
to Tennessee when the State developed its SIP revision.
    \18\ The projected emissions data is available at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-modeling/2014-2016-version-7-air-emissions-modeling-platforms.
    \19\ EPA's emissions projections to 2028 were made from the 2011
NEI, as that iteration of the NEI was the most recently available
version when the projection work was performed.

     Table 3--2028 Typical Summer Day 8-Hour Ozone Emissions for the
                         Montgomery County Area
                               [tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           NOX emissions
             Source category               VOC emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire....................................            0.58            0.02
Nonpoint................................            5.31            1.36

Nonroad.................................            1.12            0.67
Onroad..................................            1.43            2.15
Point...................................            0.73            0.31
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................            9.17            4.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    EPA periodically reviews the ozone monitoring network that the
Commonwealth of Kentucky operates and maintains in Christian County, in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. This network plan, which is submitted
annually to EPA, is consistent with the ambient air monitoring network
assessment. The annual network plan developed by the Kentucky Division
for Air Quality (KDAQ) follows a public notification and review
process. EPA has reviewed and approved the 2020 Ambient Air Monitoring
Network Plan (``2020 Annual Network Plan'').\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Kentucky's network plan is available at https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/environment/air/documents/apcairqualitymonitoring/2020%20Tennessee%20Annual%20Monitoring%20Network%20Plan%20-%20Comment%20Update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To verify the attainment status of the area over the maintenance
period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued
operation of an appropriate, EPA-approved monitoring network in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. As noted above, KDAQ's monitoring
network in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville Area has been approved by EPA
in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, and Kentucky committed, in its SIP-
approved maintenance plan,\21\ to continue to maintain a network in
accordance with EPA requirements. TDEC supports continued ozone
monitoring by KDAQ. EPA proposes to find that KDAQ's monitoring network
is adequate to verify continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Montgomery County Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 71 FR 4047 (January 25, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the Act requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions. The purpose of such contingency provisions is
to prevent future violations of the NAAQS or to promptly remedy any
NAAQS violations that might occur during the maintenance period. These
contingency measures are required to be implemented expeditiously once
they are triggered by a future violation of the NAAQS or some other
trigger. The state should identify specific triggers which will be used
to determine when the contingency measures need to be implemented.
    The LMP states that the trigger is a Quality Assured/Quality
Controlled (QA/QC) violating design value of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in the Clarksville-Hopkinsville Area.\22\ If this trigger is
activated, the maintenance plan requires Tennessee to conduct a study
to determine the cause of the higher ozone value, whether from an event
not likely to recur or from an increasing trend in emissions that
threatens the continued maintenance of the NAAQS. Tennessee will adopt
and implement appropriate contingency measures tailored to the source
of the violation (or increased concentrations) as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 18 to 24 months after the trigger
event.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ If QA/QC data indicates a violating design value for the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS, then the triggering event will be the date of the
design value violation, and not the final QA/QC date. However, if
initial monitoring data indicates a possible design value violation
but later QA/QC indicates that a NAAQS violation did not occur, then
a triggering event will not have occurred, and contingency measures
will not need to be implemented.
    \23\ See the Contingency Plan section of the LMP for further
information regarding the contingency plan, including measures that
Tennessee will consider for adoption if the trigger is activated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to find that the contingency provisions in Tennessee's
second maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS meet the
requirements of the CAA section 175A(d).

E. Conclusion

    EPA proposes to find that the Montgomery County Area LMP for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS includes an approvable update of the various
elements (including attainment inventory, assurance of adequate
monitoring and verification of continued attainment, and contingency
provisions) of the initial EPA-approved Maintenance Plan for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA also proposes to find that the Montgomery
County Area, qualifies for the LMP option, and adequately demonstrates
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS through the documentation of
monitoring data showing maximum 1997 8-hour ozone levels well below the
NAAQS and historically stable design values. EPA believes the
Montgomery County Area's LMP, which retains all existing control
measures in the SIP, is sufficient to provide for maintenance of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in Montgomery County over the second
maintenance period (i.e., through 2025) and thereby satisfies the
requirements for such a plan under CAA section 175A(b). EPA is
therefore proposing to approve Tennessee's June 23, 2020, submission of
the Montgomery County Area's LMP as a revision to the Tennessee SIP.

V. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS. See CAA 176(c)(1)(A) and (B).
EPA's transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 subpart A
requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to
SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining
whether they conform. The conformity rule generally requires a
demonstration that emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are consistent
with the motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) contained in the control
strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan. See 40 CFR 93.101, 93.118,
and 93.124. A MVEB is defined as ``the portion of the total allowable
emissions defined in the submitted or approved control strategy
implementation plan revision or maintenance plan for a certain date for
the purpose of meeting reasonable further progress milestones or
demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, for any criteria
pollutant or its precursors,

allocated to highway and transit vehicle use and emissions.'' See 40
CFR 93.101.
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emissions analysis. See 40 CFR 93.109(e). On
September 22, 2005, EPA made a finding that the MVEBs for the first 12
years of the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the Montgomery
County Area were adequate for transportation conformity purposes. In a
Federal Register notice dated September 22, 2005, EPA notified the
public of that finding. See 70 FR 55559. These new MVEBs became
effective November 21, 2005. After approval of this LMP or an adequacy
finding for this LMP, there is no requirement to meet the budget test
pursuant to the transportation conformity rule for the maintenance
area. All actions that would require a transportation conformity
determination for the Montgomery County Area under EPA's transportation
conformity rule provisions are considered to have already satisfied the
regional emissions analysis and ``budget test'' requirements in 40 CFR
93.118 as a result of EPA's adequacy finding for the LMP. See 69 FR
40004 (July 1, 2004).
    However, because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of transportation conformity determinations still will be
required for transportation plans, programs, and projects.
Specifically, for such determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation
projects still will have to demonstrate that they are fiscally
constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for consultation (40
CFR 93.105) and Transportation Control Measure implementation in the
conformity rule provisions (40 CFR 93.113) as well as meet the hot-spot
requirements for projects (40 CFR 93.116).\24\ Additionally, conformity
determinations for RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less frequently
than every four years, and conformity of plan and TIP amendments and
transportation projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing
requirements specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, in order for
projects to be approved they must come from a currently conforming RTP
and TIP. See 40 CFR 93.114 and 40 CFR 93.115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ A conformity determination that meets other applicable
criteria in Table 1 of paragraph (b) of this section (93.109(e)) is
still required, including the hot-spot requirements for projects in
CO, PM10, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposed Action

    Under sections 110(k) and 175A of the CAA and for the reasons set
forth above, EPA is proposing to approve the Montgomery County Area LMP
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, submitted by TDEC on June 23, 2020, as
a revision to the Tennessee SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the
Montgomery County Area LMP because it includes an acceptable update of
the various elements of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS Maintenance Plan
approved by EPA for the first 10-year period (including emissions
inventory, assurance of adequate monitoring and verification of
continued attainment, and contingency provisions), and retains the
relevant provisions of the SIP.
    EPA also finds that the Montgomery County Area qualifies for the
LMP option and that, therefore, the Montgomery County Area's LMP
adequately demonstrates maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through documentation of monitoring data showing maximum 1997 8-hour
ozone levels well below the NAAQS and continuation of existing control
measures. EPA believes that the Montgomery County Area's 1997 8-Hour
Ozone LMP is sufficient to provide for maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS in Montgomery County over the second 10-year maintenance
period, through 2025, and thereby satisfy the requirements for such a
plan under CAA section 175A(b).

VII. 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. See 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. This action merely
proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: September 1, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021-20349 Filed 9-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35550-35551]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16026]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0660]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Jamaica Bay, Queens, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges
Memorial) bridge across Jamaica Bay (Rockaway Inlet), mile 3.0, at
Queens, NY. The deviation is necessary to complete rehabilitation work
on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge owner to require two
hours advance notice before opening the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on July 30, 2018, to 4
p.m. on November 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0660 is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Bridge Management
Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
212-514-4336, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The owner of the bridge, Metropolitan
Transportation Authority Bridges and Tunnels, requested a temporary
deviation from the normal operating schedule in order to complete
rehabilitation work associated with the replacement of lift span
machinery. The Marine Parkway (Gil Hodges Memorial) Bridge across
Jamaica Bay (Rockaway Inlet), mile 3.0 at Queens, New York has a
vertical clearance of 55 feet at mean high water and 59 feet at mean
low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating
regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.795(a).
    The temporary deviation will allow the owner of the Marine Parkway
(Gil Hodges Memorial) bridge to require vessels seeking an opening of
the draw to provide a minimum of two hours of advance notice on
weekdays (Monday through Friday) between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.
from July 30, 2018 to November 30, 2018 by submitting a request for the
opening of the draw. Requiring a minimum of two hours of advance notice
before opening the draw allows for sufficient time to alert all
affected personnel engaged in bridge rehabilitation work to vacate the
lift span and all machinery areas along, with removing and/or securing
materials and equipment prior to lifting the bridge.
    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational traffic as well
as commercial vessels, largely tug and barge combinations. The 55 foot
vertical clearance while the bridge is in the closed position offers
the bulk of commercial traffic sufficient room to transit under the
bridge in the closed position. Vessels that can pass under the bridge
without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to
open for emergencies. There is no immediate alternate route for vessels
unable to pass through the bridge when in the closed position.
    The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterway through our Local
and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule
for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by this temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 23, 2018.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-16026 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 30577]
[DOCID:fr01jn07-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-355-003]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 25, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP
(Gulf South) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective
date of June 9, 2006:

Sec. Sub. First Revised Sheet No. 3701
Original Sheet No. 3701A

    Gulf South states that the filing is being made in compliance with
the Commission's order issued April 10, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-10535 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 28800]
[DOCID:fr24my10-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

May 12, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC10-68-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Energy Inc., FirstEnergy Corp.
    Description: Application of FirstEnergy Corp., et al. under Section
203 of Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-5100.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 12, 2010.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER03-908-003.
    Applicants: Fulcrum Power Marketing LLC.
    Description: Supplement to Filing of Fulcrum Power Marketing LLC.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-5118.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1232-024; ER07-1358-014.
    Applicants: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, BE Louisiana
LLC.
    Description: J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation and BE
Louisiana LLC's Supplement to Updated Market Power Analysis and Order
No. 697 Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1228-000.
    Applicants: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC.
    Description: Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC submits request
for authorization to make wholesale power sales to its affiliate etc.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100512-0202.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 01, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1229-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits amendments to FERC Electric, Fourth Replacement Volume Nos. 1 &
2.
    Filed Date: 05/07/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100512-0210.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, May 28, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES10-35-000.
    Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC, ATC Management Inc.
    Description: Supplemental Information and Request for Shortened
Comment Period of American Transmission Company LLC and ATC Management
Inc.
    Filed Date: 05/05/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100505-5023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 17, 2010.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:
    Docket Numbers: RR10-9-001.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Supplemental Filing to Petition of North American
Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Amended 2010 Business
Plan and Budget of WECC and Amendment to Exhibit E etc.
    Filed Date: 05/11/2010.
    Accession Number: 20100511-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 26, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12392 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 114)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33690-33692]
[DOCID:fr15jn10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0443]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Lights on the River Fireworks Display, Delaware
River, New Hope, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Delaware River in New Hope, PA. The safety zone will restrict vessel
traffic on the Delaware River from operating within 400 yards of a
fireworks barge located at 40[deg]21'49'' N./074[deg]56'54'' W. The
safety zone will protect life and property while preventing vessel
traffic from navigating on the Delaware River near the Bridge Street
Bridge and for 800 feet downriver of the bridge in New Hope, PA.

DATES: This rule is effective from June 15, 2010 through July 30, 2010.
This rule may be enforced with actual notice starting on the signature
date.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0443 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0443 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Ensign Gary George, Chief Waterways
Management, Sector Delaware Bay, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. Delaying action on this rulemaking to allow
for a comment period would be contrary to the public interest in
allowing this event to go on as scheduled. Furthermore, the location of
the event and short duration (one hour once each week, in the evening)
mean that the chance of significant impact on or interest by the
boating public is small.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard further finds that good
cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register for the same reason as above.
Delaying the establishment of the safety zone could result in mariners
approaching the fireworks barge, creating a hazardous scenario with
potential for loss of life and property.

Basis and Purpose

    The New Hope Chamber of Commerce has contracted Garden State
Fireworks Inc. for a fireworks display to reoccur once a week on Friday
evenings from May 21, 2010 to July 30, 2010. The establishment of this
safety zone will prevent vessels from entering the fireworks fallout
area, located on the Delaware River at 40[deg]21'49'' N./
074[deg]567'54'' W. This safety zone will help protect both life and
property on the Delaware River.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone which will
be enforced May 21, 2010 from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. and then every Friday
from May 28, 2010 through July 30, 2010 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m.
    Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Captain of the
Port, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area
during the enforcement period. The safety zone is necessary to protect
life and property operating on the navigable waterways of the Delaware
River in New Hope, PA.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation restricts vessel
traffic on the navigable waters of the Delaware River, the effect of
this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration
that the safety zone will be in effect. While the safety zone will be
reoccurring on a weekly basis, the enforcement window lasts for only an
hour in an area that is bordered downriver by rapids, minimizing local
traffic that might pass though the affected area.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit in a portion of the Delaware River, New Hope, PA Fridays from
May 28, 2010 through July 30, 2010 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be enforced for a maximum duration of one hour. Vessel
traffic may pass through the affected area on the Delaware River during
time periods other than the time needed to enforce the safety zone in
during the ``Lights on the River'' fireworks shows.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. This rule does not use technical standards.
Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of
the Instruction. This rule involves a limited-duration recurring safety
zone intended to protect life and property on the navigable waterways
of the Delaware River. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100-SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat.2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-0443, to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T05-0443  Safety Zone; Fireworks Display, Delaware River, New
Hope, PA.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will restrict vessel traffic on the
Delaware River from operating within 400 yards of a fireworks barge
located at 40[deg]21'49'' N./074[deg]56'54'' W. This point is described
as a point existing 400 ft downriver of the Bridge St. Bridge located
in New Hope, PA, and 400 ft east of the shoreline of New Hope, PA.
    (b) Regulations. (1) No person or vessel may enter or navigate
within this safety zone unless authorized to do so by the Captain of
the Port or a designated representative. Any person or vessel
authorized to enter the safety zone must operate in strict conformance
with any directions given by the Captain of the Port or a designated
representative and leave the safety zone immediately if so ordered.

    (2) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be
contacted on VHF marine band radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of
the Port can be contacted at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) The Captain of the Port will notify the public of any changes
in the status of this safety zone by Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on
VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22 (157.1 MHZ).
    (c) Definition. ``Designated representative'' means the Commander
of Sector Delaware Bay or any Coast Guard Commissioned, Warrant or
Petty Officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act
on her behalf.
    (d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced every Friday
from May 28, 2010 through July 30, 2010 from 9 p.m. until 10 p.m.

    Dated: May 21, 2010.
R.T. Gatlin,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2010-14297 Filed 6-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 9609]
[DOCID:fr05mr09-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-5929-001]

Hanf, Robert J.S.; Notice of Filing

February 25, 2009.
    Take notice that on February 5, 2009, Robert J.S. Hanf submitted
for filing, an application for authority to hold interlocking
positions, pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 825d(b)(2008), and Part 45 of Title 18 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, 18 CFR part 45 (2008).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 12, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-4708 Filed 3-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22058-22059]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09497]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0140; Notice 1]

General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC (GM), has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2014-2016 GM motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims
and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity
Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or Less. GM filed a noncompliance report dated December 6,
2016, and revised it on April 6, 2017. GM also petitioned NHTSA on
January 5, 2017, and submitted a revised petition on April 7, 2017, for
a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: General Motors, LLC (GM), has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2014-2016 GM motor vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.4.2(e) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle
Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. GM filed a
noncompliance report dated December 6, 2016, and revised it on April 6,
2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part

573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. GM also
petitioned NHTSA on January 5, 2017, and submitted a revised petition
on April 7, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49
CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of GM's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 130,088 of the following MY
2014-2016 GM motor vehicles manufactured between August 7, 2014, and
June 15, 2015, are potentially involved:
 2015-2016 Cadillac Escalade
 2015-2016 Cadillac Escalade ESV
 2015-2015 Cadillac SRX
 2015-2016 Chevrolet Tahoe
 2015-2016 GMC Yukon
 2015-2016 GMC Yukon XL
 2014-2015 GMC Sierra
 2014-2015 Chevrolet Silverado
 2015-2016 Chevrolet Suburban

    III. Noncompliance: GM explains that the noncompliance is that the
subject vehicles are equipped with wheels supplied by Citic Dicastal
Co. LTD (Dicastal) that are marked with unregistered date of
manufacture marks that were not previously disclosed to NHTSA and
therefore, do not comply with paragraph S4.4.2(e) of FMVSS No. 110.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.4.2(e) of FMVSS No. 110 states:

    S4.4.2 Rim markings for vehicles other than passenger cars. Each
rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case of a single-
piece wheel, each wheel disc shall be marked with the information
listed in S4.4.2 (a) through (e), in lettering not less than 3
millimeters in height, impressed to a depth or, at the option of the
manufacturer, embossed to a height of not less than 0.125
millimeters . . .
    (e) The month, day and year or the month and year of
manufacture, expressed either numerically or by use of a symbol, at
the option of the manufacturer. For example: ``September 4, 2001''
may be expressed numerically as: ``90401'', ``904, 01'' or ``01,
904''; ``September 2001'' may be expressed as: ``901'', ``9, 01'' or
``01, 9''.
    i. Any manufacturer that elects to express the date of
manufacture by means of a symbol shall notify NHTSA in writing of
the full names and addresses of all manufacturers and brand name
owners utilizing that symbol and the name and address of the
trademark owner of that symbol, if any. The notification shall
describe in narrative form and in detail how the month, day, and
year or the month and year are depicted by the symbol. Such
description shall include an actual size graphic depiction of the
symbol, showing and/or explaining the interrelationship of the
component parts of the symbol as they will appear on the rim or
single piece of wheel disc, including dimensional specifications,
and where the symbol will be located on the rim or single piece
wheel disc. The notification shall be received by NHTSA not less
than 60 calendar days before the first use of the symbol . . .

    V. Summary of GM's Petition: GM described the subject noncompliance
and stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, GM submitted the following reasons:
    (a) This is not a safety issue: Neither the marking method nor the
timely disclosure of it to NHTSA have any effect on the operation,
performance, or safety of the affected vehicles. For example, the
required date marks do not serve any safety purpose and do not provide
any safety benefit. The purpose of the date mark is traceability in the
event a future wheel defect is discovered. For example, if it were
discovered that Dicastal wheels manufactured in January 2015 had a
defect (e.g., high porosity in the casting) a dealer could use the date
marking to determine if a given wheel was in the suspect population.
    Importantly, here, all the affected wheels on GM's vehicles have
accurate date markings and can be traced in the event of a defect.
Except for a small percentage of affected wheels, the markings have all
been disclosed to NHTSA. Disclosed or not, however, GM and its dealers
can still trace the wheels because the unregistered date marks contain
sufficient information to clearly identify the month and year of
manufacture. Therefore, the issue here is more of a procedural one, and
the fact that these date marks were not registered with NHTSA in a
timely manner presents no substantive safety issue and is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    (b) NHTSA has granted similar requests: Granting this petition
would be consistent with NHTSA's past decisions involving wheel
markings required by FMVSS No. 110. For example, NHTSA recently granted
a petition for inconsequential treatment related to a noncompliance
with FMVSS No. 110's requirement that the source of the published
nominal dimensions be marked on the rims. In that case, NHTSA agreed
that the incorrect rim marking had no effect on the performance and
safety of the tire/rim combination. Here, the connection to safety is
even more attenuated because the markings on the wheels are correct,
they were just not disclosed to NHTSA in a timely manner. For at least
the same reasons NHTSA found incorrect rim markings inconsequential to
vehicle safety, GM requests that NHTSA come to the same conclusion
regarding the correct, but unregistered, markings in this case as being
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    (c) The issue has been corrected: Dicastal corrected the issue in
production on April 25, 2015, when it stopped using unregistered date
marks. Since then, the manufacture date marks on GM's Dicastal wheels
have been properly disclosed to NHTSA and comply with FMVSS No. 110.
    GM concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    To view GM's petition, pictures and analyses in its entirety you
can visit https://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID
number for this petition shown in the heading of this notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that GM no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after GM
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-09497 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13175-13176]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2661-082]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application for
Amendment of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a: Application Type: Request for temporary variance of the water
surface elevation requirement, pursuant to Article 403 of the Hat Creek
Hydroelectric Project.
    b: Project No.: 2661-082.
    c: Date Filed: February 10, 2011.
    d: Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    e: Name of Project: Hat Creek Hydroelectric Project (P-2661).
    f: Location: The Hat Creek Hydroelectric Project is located on Hat
Creek, near the town of Cassel, in Shasta County, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h: Applicant Contact: Mr. Jason F.R. Vann, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, 245 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, Tel: (415)
973-3727.
    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Houff,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: 15 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-2661-082) on
any documents or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
is requesting a temporary variance of its water surface elevation
requirement of Cassel Pond, pursuant to Article 403 of the license.
PG&E proposes a temporary reduction of one foot, from 3,188.27 feet
National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NVGD)  0.5 feet to
3,187.27 feet NVGD  0.5 feet. The purpose of the water
surface elevation of Cassel Pond is to mitigate the new water leakage
found on the downstream side of the embankment of Hat 1 Fore bay Dam.
The water leakage is in the same general vicinity of drainage
mitigation work performed in 2009. PG&E does not consider the leakage
an immediate dam safety concern but needs to reduce the water surface
elevation of Cassel Pond to actively investigate the cause of the
leakage and perform corrective measures. The water elevation level
variance would be in effect from the date of the Commission approval
until PG&E can assess whether the source of the new leaks are related
to the leaks observed in 2009, and can implement corrective measures.
The estimated length of the elevation reduction is 6 to 8 months;
however, the duration of the reduction depends on the time it takes to
locate the root cause of the leakage and the time necessary to complete
the corrective actions implemented.
    l. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18
CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take,
the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS,'' ``PROTEST,'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served
upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular
application.
    Federal, State, and local agencies are invited to file comments on
the

described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by
agencies directly from the applicant. If an agency does not file
comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must
also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: March 4, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-5483 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P