[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77211-77212]
[FR Doc No: 2020-26472]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10017-92-OA]

Request for Nominations for a Science Advisory Board Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office requests public nominations of scientific
experts to form a Panel to review the BenMAP model, an open-source
computer program that calculates estimated air pollution-related deaths
and illnesses and their associated economic value. BenMAP is a
shorthand title referring to the Environmental Benefits Mapping and
Analysis Program. The Panel will review the latest available public
release version of the BenMAP software.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted by December 29, 2020 per the
instructions below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public wishing
further information regarding this notice and request for nominations
may contact Dr. Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA
Science Advisory Board via telephone/voice mail<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information concerning the
EPA SAB can be found at the EPA SAB website at http://www.epa.gov/sab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: The SAB (42 U.S.C. 4365) is a
chartered Federal Advisory Committee that provides independent
scientific and technical peer review, advice, and recommendations to
the EPA Administrator on the technical basis for EPA actions. As a
Federal Advisory Committee, the SAB conducts business in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and
related regulations. The SAB Staff Office is forming an expert panel,
the BenMAP Review Panel under the auspices of the Chartered SAB. The
BenMAP Review Panel will provide advice through the chartered SAB. The
SAB and the BenMAP Review Panel will comply with the provisions of FACA
and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural policies. The BenMAP
Review Panel will conduct the review of BenMAP as requested by the
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.
    Technical Contact for EPA's draft report: For information
concerning BenMAP-Community Edition v1.5, please contact Neal Fann by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Request for Nominations: The SAB Staff Office is seeking
nominations of nationally and internationally recognized scientists
with demonstrated expertise in the following disciplines: Software
development (including C#/.Net and SQL databases); Geographic
Information Systems and Geostatistics; Demographics; Risk Assessment;
Statistics/Biostatistics; Photochemical Air Quality Modeling;
Economics/Non-Market Valuation. The Panel will be asked to examine the
C# code in BenMAP and independently validate results so panelists will
need the appropriate software experience and general risk assessment
experience to conduct this review. Questions regarding this advisory
activity should be directed to the DFO, Dr. Holly Stallworth, listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Process and Deadline for Submitting Nominations: Any interested
person or organization may nominate qualified individuals in the areas
of expertise described above for possible service on the SAB Panel
identified in this notice. Individuals may self-nominate. Nominations
should be submitted in electronic format (preferred over hard copy)
following the instructions for ``Nominating Experts to Advisory Panels
and Ad Hoc Committees Being Formed,'' provided on the SAB website (see
the ``Nomination of Experts'' link

under ``Current Activities'' at http://www.epa.gov/sab). To receive
full consideration, nominations should include all of the information
requested below. Nominators unable to submit nominations electronically
as described above may contact the DFO, Dr. Holly Stallworth, listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    EPA's SAB Staff Office requests contact information about the
person making the nomination; contact information about the nominee;
the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; the
nominee's resume or curriculum vitae; sources of recent grant and/or
contract support; and a biographical sketch of the nominee indicating
current position, educational background, research activities, and
recent service on other national advisory committees or national
professional organizations.
    Persons having questions about the nomination procedures, or who
are unable to submit nominations through the SAB website, should
contact the, Dr. Holly Stallworth, listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later
than December 29, 2020. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort
to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations
of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.
    The EPA SAB Staff Office will acknowledge receipt of nominations.
The names and biosketches of qualified nominees identified by
respondents to this Federal Register notice, and additional experts
identified by the SAB Staff Office, will be posted in a List of
Candidates for the Panel on the SAB website at http://www.epa.gov/sab.
Public comments on the List of Candidates will be accepted for 15 days.
The public will be requested to provide relevant information or other
documentation on nominees that the SAB Staff Office should consider in
evaluating candidates.
    For the EPA SAB Staff Office a balanced review panel includes
candidates who possess the necessary domains of knowledge, the relevant
scientific perspectives (which, among other factors, can be influenced
by work history and affiliation), and the collective breadth of
experience to adequately address the charge. In forming the expert
panel, the SAB Staff Office will consider public comments on the List
of Candidates, information provided by the candidates themselves, and
background information independently gathered by the SAB Staff Office.
Selection criteria to be used for panel membership include: (a)
Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience
(primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c)
absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an
appearance of a loss of impartiality; (e) skills working in committees,
subcommittees and advisory panels; and, (f) for the panel as a whole,
diversity of expertise and scientific points of view.
    The SAB Staff Office's evaluation of an absence of financial
conflicts of interest will include a review of the ``Confidential
Financial Disclosure Form for Environmental Protection Agency Special
Government Employees'' (EPA Form 3110-48). This confidential form
allows government officials to determine whether there is a statutory
conflict between a person's public responsibilities (which include
membership on an EPA federal advisory committee) and private interests
and activities, or the appearance of a loss of impartiality, as defined
by federal regulation. The form may be viewed and downloaded from the
following URL address http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/Web/ethics?OpenDocument.
    The approved policy under which the EPA SAB Office selects members
for subcommittees and review panels is described in the following
document: Overview of the Panel Formation Process at the Environmental
Protection Agency Science Advisory Board (EPA-SAB-EC-02-010), which is
posted on the SAB website at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/WebFiles/OverviewPanelForm/$File/ec02010.pdf.

Thomas Brennan,
Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2020-26472 Filed 11-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Summary of EPA Meeting with the National Paint & Coatings
Association’s Environmental Management Committee

May 23, 2007

On Wednesday, May 23, 2007, Definition of Solid Waste team members from
the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) met with the National Paint & Coatings
Association (NPCA)’s Environmental Management Committee. EPA gave a
brief overview of the supplemental proposed rule and took questions and
comments from the group. In response to a question regarding non-waste
determinations, EPA clarified that a generator can choose to pursue a
non-waste determination if their specific case does not first fit under
the other two exclusions (which are self-implementing). As part of the
discussion, NPCA voiced concerns about the impacts of sudden market
changes on generators who have all intentions of legitimately recycling
their waste but then, due to unforeseen circumstances, must quickly find
another reclaimer or risk losing the exclusion, thereby potentially
placing the generator out of compliance as the materials become
‘hazardous waste’. Specifically, NPCA discussed a potential chilling
effect on generators who consolidate shipments across several of their
facilities and must assume the risk of an unexpected change in
regulatory status due to circumstances out of their control. EPA
responded by expressing interest in comments on this issue. Finally, EPA
confirmed that the term ‘recycler’ covers not only the classic
“Part B” permitted facilities but also start-up recyclers and
generators who accept and recycle hazardous secondary materials from
other companies.

Amanda Geldard		Environmental Protection Agency

Charlotte Mooney		Environmental Protection Agency

David Darling			NPCA

Jim Sell 			NPCA

Creg Browne 			Akzo Nobel

R. Scott Thomas 		Sherwin-Williams

Barry Cupp 			Sherwin-Williams

Allen Stegman 			Valspar Corporation

George Patterson 		DuPont

John Kinast 			Henry Company

Ranya Laiosa 			Benjamin Moore

Jordan Dern 			Delta Laboratories


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20506-20507]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-468-000]

Trailblazer Pipeline Company, Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC;
Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed
Trailblazer Conversion Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Trailblazer Conversion Project (Project), proposed by Trailblazer
Pipeline Company, LLC (TPC) and Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC (REX),
collectively, the Applicants, in the above-referenced docket. The
Applicants request authorization to abandon in-place, construct, and
operate natural gas transmission facilities in Wyoming, Colorado and
Nebraska. According to TPC and REX, the Project is designed to provide
continuing service to TPC's existing natural gas firm transportation
customers using underutilized jurisdictional capacity on REX pipeline
facilities while making TPC's pipeline facilities available in
anticipation of future non-jurisdictional use to transport carbon
dioxide (CO2) for final sequestration. The Project would not
involve an increase in natural gas transportation capacity.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
abandonment, construction, and operation of the Project in accordance
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The
FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with
appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The Trailblazer Conversion Project would consist of the following:
     abandonment in-place of 392 miles of 36-inch-diameter
Trailblazer Pipeline and three TPC mainline compressor stations on the
Trailblazer Pipeline, including activities involving excavation to
expose, cut, and cap the pipeline facilities, at discrete sites;
     construction of a new 18.8-mile-long, 20-inch-diameter
lateral pipeline (REX Lateral to TPC Adams);
     construction of a new 22.2-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter
lateral pipeline (REX Lateral to TPC East);
     installation of station piping and additional regulation
at three existing TPC meter stations to enable deliveries into end
users or interstate pipeline systems;
     expansion of one existing meter station between the
Rockies Express Pipeline and the Trailblazer Pipeline;
     construction of two new REX meter stations; and
     construction of five new interconnect booster stations
(small capacity compressor stations) at existing pipeline facilities
(footprint of booster stations ranging from 1.2 to 2.1 acres in size
and total horsepower ranging from 50 to 3,533).
    The EA addresses the facilities and abandonment activities proposed
by the Applicants. If the Commission grants approval for abandonment,
future use of the pipeline for purposes other than interstate natural
gas transportation, including any subsequent construction related to
future use of the abandoned pipeline for CO2 sequestration,
would not be subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other
interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the
Project area. The EA is only available in electronic format. It may be
viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
natural gas environmental documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). In
addition, the EA may be accessed by using the eLibrary link on the
FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link (https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/elibrary/overview), select ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three
digits (i.e. CP22-468). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The number of pages in the EA exceeds the page limits set forth in
the Council on Environmental Quality's July 16, 2020 final rule, Update
to the Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (85 FR 43304). The Director of the
Office of Energy Projects, as our senior agency official, has
authorized this page limit exceedance for the EA to provide information
that is useful to the decision-making process.
    The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's
independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to
consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should
focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental
effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to
consider your comments prior to making its decision on this Project, it
is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 1, 2023.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
FERC Online. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address using the U.S. Postal Service. Be sure to
reference the Project docket number (CP22-468-000) with your
submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent through carriers other than the U.S. Postal Service
must be sent to 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852 for
processing.
    Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status,
but you do not need intervenor status to have

your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this
point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention
requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the
proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule
214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures
(18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time
limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully
described at https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/ferc-online/how-guides.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: March 31, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07197 Filed 4-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


MEMORANDUM

Date:		February 15, 2012
Subject:	Summary of EPA Regional Office Survey about MOVES Transition for Regional Conformity Analyses
From:	Meg Patulski, State Measures and Transportation Planning Center, OTAQ
To:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0393

      In February 2011, EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) surveyed its EPA Regional Offices to determine the status of state and local agency transition to using MOVES in regional conformity analyses.  This survey was based on a cursory review of existing information already available to the EPA Regions including:
   * The status of discussions about the transition to MOVES through the interagency consultation process,
   * Whether state and local agencies had gained competency and technical expertise in using MOVES for either regional conformity analyses or SIP development, and
   * Any possible or anticipated revisions to SIP motor vehicle emissions budgets with MOVES.
The information below summarizes the results of OTAQ's informal survey.
Overview:
      In February 2011, there were approximately 100 nonattainment and maintenance areas for the 1997 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and 37 nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS in states outside of California.   Under the transportation conformity rule at that time, these areas were required to begin using MOVES in regional conformity analyses when the MOVES grace period ended in March 2012.  Many of these areas had already submitted state implementation plans (SIPs) based on MOBILE6.2.  EPA had already approved maintenance plans for nearly 70 ozone areas.
1997 Ozone NAAQS Areas:
      Based on the results of the informal survey, approximately 80% of ozone areas (80 areas) needed additional transition time for regional conformity analyses with MOVES.  The remaining ozone areas (about 20 areas) involved miscellaneous situations, e.g., isolated rural areas that did not anticipate making a conformity determination in the near future.
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS Areas:
      Based on the results of the informal survey, approximately 81% of PM2.5 areas (30 areas) needed additional transition time for regional conformity analyses with MOVES.  The remaining PM2.5 areas involved miscellaneous situations, e.g., EPA had previously found regional emissions to be insignificant so a regional conformity analyses was no longer required.
Additional Details:
      The majority of ozone and PM2.5 areas had not yet begun to use MOVES for conformity purposes for several reasons.  Start-up issues included:  building technical capacity in-house at an MPO or obtaining staff elsewhere (e.g., from state DOT); other constraints on emissions modeling staff; and data collection and reformatting MOBILE data for use in MOVES.  Re-planning issues included having the necessary time (after a MOVES regional conformity analysis was completed) to either update the transportation plan and transportation improvement program and/or revise an existing approved or adequate MOBILE-based SIP motor vehicle emissions budget with MOVES.  Many Regions believed it would take at least a year (and sometimes longer) for states to update any SIP budgets with MOVES, once MOVES was used for regional conformity analyses.  States have different processes for developing SIPs depending on state law and other factors (e.g., accommodating interagency consultation and public involvement).


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2294-2295]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00050]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 7 and 9

[EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0031; FRL-9958-03-OA]
RIN 2090-AA39

Nondiscrimination in Programs or Activities Receiving Federal
Assistance From the Environmental Protection Agency

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing a
proposed rule for which the EPA no longer intends to issue a final
rule. This document identifies the proposed rule and explains the EPA's
decision to withdraw the proposal. The withdrawal of this proposed rule
does not preclude the EPA from initiating the same or similar
rulemaking at a future date. It does, however, close out the entry for
this proposed rule in the EPA Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda, published
as part of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
Actions (Unified Agenda). Should the EPA decide at some future date to
initiate the same or similar rulemaking, it will add an appropriate new
entry to the EPA Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda to reflect the
initiation of the action.

DATES: The EPA is withdrawing the proposed rule as of January 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0031. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt Temple, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Civil Rights, (Mail

Code 1201A), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
particular interest to those persons who follow proposed rules related
to the EPA's regulations about Nondiscrimination in Programs or
Activities Receiving Federal Assistance from the EPA. Since others may
also be interested, the EPA has not attempted to describe all the
specific entities potentially interested.

II. Why is the EPA issuing this withdrawal document?

    This document announces to the public that the EPA is withdrawing a
certain proposed rule for which the EPA no longer intends to issue a
final rule.
    For the reasons described in this document, the EPA has decided not
to finalize this rulemaking at this time. By withdrawing the proposed
rule, the EPA is eliminating the pending nature of the regulatory
action. Should the EPA determine to pursue anything in these areas in
the future, it will issue a new proposed rule and invite public comment
through notice in the Federal Register.

III. Background

    1. What was proposed? On December 14, 2015, the EPA published a
proposed rule in the Federal Register (80 FR 77284), to amend its
nondiscrimination regulation regarding compliance information
requirements for recipients of EPA financial assistance and Agency
Compliance Procedures, as well as a technical correction to the
reference to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
    2. Why is it being withdrawn? The agency proposed amending its
regulation to bring it into conformance with more than 20 other federal
agencies. In other words, this proposed regulatory amendment concerned
the EPA's internal processes, including the investigation of complaints
and compliance reviews, and not obligations imposed on external
stakeholders.
    Nonetheless, the EPA received several adverse comments about this
proposed amendment; especially regarding the proposal to remove numeric
deadlines from the administrative complaint processing regulations. The
EPA has considered all comments received. Although the EPA continues to
believe that the proposed amendments, including the elimination of the
numeric deadlines, are needed in order to better position the EPA to
strategically manage and individually tailor resolution approaches to
its administrative investigation of complaints and compliance reviews,
the EPA has decided to withdraw the proposed amendments.
    Instead of continuing to pursue this rulemaking, the EPA will
implement and evaluate the ability of its internal procedural guidance
documents and accountability measures that were finalized in December
2016 (including the Case Resolution Manual and the EPA's OCR External
Compliance Program Strategic Plan) to achieve prompt effective, and
efficient docket management. Based on its evaluation, the EPA may
decide at some future date to initiate a new rulemaking to amend its
non-discrimination regulation. The EPA is withdrawing the proposed
amendments, as opposed to leaving them inactive, to promote
transparency and certainty with regard to the status of its non-
discrimination regulation.
    3. Where can I get more information about this action? The EPA has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2013-0031. See the ADDRESSES section above for more detail information
about this docket.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 7

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Age discrimination, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity,
Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sex discrimination.

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Control number, Office of Management and
Budget, and Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Dated: December 29, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-00050 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35749-35751]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14640]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG14-64-000.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5173.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: EG14-65-000.
    Applicants: CED White River Solar 2, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of CED White River Solar 2, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: EG14-66-000.
    Applicants: CED White River Solar, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of CED White River Solar, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER13-65-002.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: OATT Order No. 1000 Third Regional Compliance Filing
to be effective 6/13/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-67-002.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Order No. 1000 Third Regional Compliance Filing--
Montana OATT to be effective 6/13/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-68-002.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: Att K Regional Comp Filing 2 to be effective 6/13/
2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2009-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2562 S-R1 Kansas Municipal Energy Agency NITSA and NOA
to be effective 5/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2102-000.
    Applicants: Danskammer Energy, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 2, 2014 Danskammer Energy, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2177-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2824R2 KMEA & Sunflower Meter Agent Agreement to be
effective 6/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2178-000.
    Applicants: Idaho Power Company.
    Description: OATT Order No. 1000 Third Regional Compliance Filing
to be effective 6/13/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2179-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue No. W4-015; First Revised Service Agreement No.
2962 to be effective 5/14/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2180-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: 2014-06-13--Schedule 43 Escanaba Renewal to be
effective 6/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2181-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Ministerial Clean Up re OA Schedule 12 and RAA
Schedule 17 Membership Lists to be effective 4/24/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2182-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: OATT Order No. 1000 Third Regional Compliance Filing
to be effective 6/13/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2183-000.
    Applicants: Portland General Electric Company.
    Description: NTTG Funding Agreement to be effective 6/13/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2184-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of KPP/Westar Ancillary
Services Agreement SA 1136R3 of Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/13/14.
    Accession Number: 20140613-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2185-000.
    Applicants: EFS Parlin Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Revision of market-based rate tariff to be effective
6/17/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2186-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Revisions to the PJM OATT & OA re Tier 2 Sync Reserve
Aggregation of Penalties to be effective 8/15/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2187-000.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be
effective 8/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2188-000.
    Applicants: The Dayton Power and Light Company.
    Description: FERC Rate Schedule No. 41, City of Piqua to be
effective 6/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2189-000.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy LLC.
    Description: Filing of Amended Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared
Facilities Agreement to be effective 8/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2190-000.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy II LLC.
    Description: Filing of Amended Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared
Facilities Agreement to be effective 8/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.
    Docket Numbers: ER14-2191-000.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy III LLC.
    Description: Filing of Amended Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared
Facilities Agreement to be effective 8/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2192-000.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC.
    Description: Filing of Amended Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared
Facilities Agreement to be effective 8/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5159.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2193-000.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy V LLC.
    Description: Filing of Amended Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared
Facilities Agreement to be effective 8/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2194-000.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC.
    Description: of Amended Assignment, Co-Tenancy, and Shared
Facilities Agreement to be effective 8/16/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/7/14.

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

    Dated: June 16, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-14640 Filed 6-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 3766]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01213]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of
the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the
Securities and Exchange Commission will hold an Open Meeting on
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's website at
www.sec.gov.

STATUS: This meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. (ET) and will be open to
the public via webcast on the Commission's website at www.sec.gov.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. The Commission will consider whether to propose a rule to
implement Section 27B of the Securities Act of 1933, as added by
Section 621 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary
at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: January 18, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01213 Filed 1-18-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8727-8729]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03232]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74259; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2015-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Clarify the Application of Fees to Securities Under the Select Symbol
Program of Rule 7018(a)(4)

February 11, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 2, 2015, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to clarify the fees applicable to the list of
securities eligible for the Select Symbol program under Rule
7018(a)(4), and to clarify that the fees of the program are on a per
share basis.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to clarify that routing
fees under Rules 7018(a)(1) through (3) apply to the securities of the
Select Symbol program under Rule 7018(a)(4), and to clarify that fees
and credits under the program are calculated on a per share executed
basis. NASDAQ recently adopted the Select Symbol program,\3\ which
provides lower fees for executions received on NASDAQ in a select group
of securities where access fees may be discouraging the use of public
markets. NASDAQ implemented the program on February 2, 2015. Under the
new rule, the Exchange states that it

applies the fees under the rule in lieu of other similar fees that
would normally apply under Rules 7018(a)(1) through (3). The Exchange
does not discuss fees for routing program securities for execution on
other markets. In adopting the program, the Exchange did not intend to
exclude the related routing fees under Rules 7018(a)(1) through (3).
Accordingly, the Exchange is adding clarifying text to the rule that
makes it clear that the fees assessed under Rules 7018(a)(1) through
(3) for routing orders apply to the securities of the Select Symbol
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73967 (December 30,
2014), 80 FR 594 (January 6, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-128). On January
27, 2015, the Exchange filed an immediately effective filing
replacing a security on the list of securities under the rule. See
SR-NASDAQ-2015-006 available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/NASDAQ/pdf/nasdaq-filings/2015/SR-NASDAQ-2015-006.pdf (awaiting
Commission notice and publication in the Federal Register).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ is also amending the rule text to make it clear that the
fees and credits under the program are calculated on a per share
executed basis, like the other access fees that they replace. The
Exchange notes that in adopting the rule, it discussed that it was
lowering the access fees for the Select Symbol securities from the
current per share executed rates to the new per share executed fees
under the program.\4\ The Exchange is adding clarifying language to the
rule that makes it clear that the program's fees are on a per share
executed basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73967
(December 30, 2014), 80 FR 594, 596 (January 6, 2015) (SR-NASDAQ-
2014-128).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives
of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. Specifically, the proposed change furthers these objectives
because it clarifies the applicability of routing fees under Rule
7018(a) to the securities of the Select Symbol program and how the
program fees are calculated. As noted, the rule currently does not
discuss fees assessed for routing orders away from NASDAQ for
execution, but rather notes that the fees and credits under the
program, which relate to executions on NASDAQ, are in lieu of the fees
and credits under Rules 7018(a)(1) through (3). The Exchange believes
that adding rule text that makes it clear that the normal routing fees
apply will avoid any investor confusion concerning the applicability of
the fees under the program. Similarly, although discussed in the filing
adopting the program, the rule text does not currently reflect that the
fees and credits are based on a per share executed basis. The Exchange
believes that adding rule text that clarifies that the fees and credits
are based on a per share executed calculation will serve to avoid any
investor confusion caused by not including the language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Specifically, the change does not alter the meaning or application of
the fees and credits provided under Rule 7018(a)(4), but rather
clarifies the applicability of the fees assessed for routing securities
away from NASDAQ for execution, and how the fees and credits under the
Select Symbol program are calculated. Such clarifying changes impose no
burdens on competition whatsoever and, as discussed above, further the
purposes of the Act by avoiding potential market participant confusion
over the applicability of routing fees under the rule and how the fees
and credits of the Select Symbol program are calculated.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) [sic] of the Act \7\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii). [sic]
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has requested a waiver of this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\10\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that NASDAQ may
add the clarifying language immediately. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will allow NASDAQ to
clarify the intent of this rule immediately. The Commission sees no
reason to delay the addition of language designed to remove ambiguity
to the rule. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day
operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative
upon filing with the Commission.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-010 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-010. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2015-
010, and should be submitted on or before March 11, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-03232 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17935-17936]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28245; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-047-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Cirrus Design Corporation Models SR20
and SR22 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); Reopening of
the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to certain Cirrus Design Corporation (CDC) Models
SR20 and SR22 airplanes. The earlier NPRM would have required you to
replace the cabin door rod ends at the upper and lower hinges of the
cabin door with newly designed rod ends. The earlier NPRM resulted from
two known occurrences of in-flight cabin door separation (one total
separation and one retained by the door strut). This proposed AD would
require you to replace the cabin door rod ends with new parts including
a redesigned non-binding hinge pin that replaces the existing pin at
the upper door hinge. Since these actions impose an additional burden
over that proposed in the NPRM, we are reopening the comment period to
allow the public the chance to comment on these additional actions.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, 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 service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Cirrus Design Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth, Minnesota 55811;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet address: http://
www.cirrusdesign.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wess Rouse, Aerospace Engineer,
Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Room
107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (847)
294-7834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number, ``FAA-
2007-28245; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-047-AD'' at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed
AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may
amend the proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive concerning this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On June 6, 2007, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to certain CDC Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes. This
proposal was published in the Federal Register as a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) on June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32563). The NPRM proposed to
require you to replace the cabin door rod ends at the upper and lower
hinges of the cabin door with newly designed rod ends.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comment received on the proposal
and FAA's response to the comment:

Comment Issue: Revised Service Bulletin

    We received a comment from CDC stating that CDC will soon release
Service Bulletin (SB) SB 2X-52-07 R2 listed in the NPRM and requested
the AD require accomplishment of that version.
    The FAA partially agrees. The latest revision to the service
bulletin should be used for AD accomplishment; however, SB 2X-52-07 R2
had an incorrectly written compliance paragraph that required SB 2X-52-
07 R3. SB 2X-52-07 R3 was issued on September 24, 2007, but because of
further changes necessary to insure proper door operation without
binding, SB 2X-52-07 R4 was issued on January 24, 2008. We will change
the proposed AD to require following the procedures in Service Bulletin
SB 2X-52-07 R4, dated January 24, 2008.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
the unsafe condition referenced in this document exists or could
develop on other products of the same type design; and we should take
AD action to correct this unsafe condition.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier
NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on the proposed AD.

The Supplemental NPRM

    Since we issued the earlier NPRM, CDC issued Service Bulletin SB
2X-52-07 R4, dated January 24, 2008, which includes changes to assure
proper door operation without binding.
    Proposing new parts including a redesigned non-binding hinge pin
that replaces the existing bolt at the upper door hinge and a
castellated nut for the upper end of the hinge pin to improve security
of attaching parts goes beyond the scope of what was originally
proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, we are reopening the comment period
and allowing the public the chance to comment on these additional
actions.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that the proposed AD affects 2,308 airplanes in the
U.S. registry.
    The costs vary from 3.5 work-hours to incorporate Cirrus Kit 70186-
004 and 2.5 work-hours to incorporate Cirrus Kit 70186-005. Parts cost
for either kit is $270. For the purposes of the proposed AD, we will
use 3.5 work-hours for all airplanes. Based on this, the cost of the
proposed AD is:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total cost per    Total fleet
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        airplane           cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.5 work-hours x $80 per hour = $280.........................            $270             $550       $1,269,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: CDC will provide warranty credit to the extent noted in
CDC Service Bulletin 2X-52-07 R4, dated January 24, 2008.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket that contains the proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information on
the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>)
is located at the street address stated in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Cirrus Design Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2007-28245; Directorate
Identifier 2007-CE-047-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by June 2, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the following airplane models and serial
numbers that are certificated in any category:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Models                             Serial Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SR20..............................  1423 through 1906.
SR22..............................  0795 and 0820 through 2912.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from two known occurrences of in-flight
cabin door separation (one total separation and one retained by the
door strut). We are proposing this AD to prevent in-flight failure
of the cabin door, which could result in door separation from the
airplane.

Compliance

    (e) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:
    Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within 180 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, following Cirrus Design
Corporation Service Bulletin SB 2X-52-07 R4, dated January 24, 2008:
    (1) If threaded sleeve is installed at the cabin door rod end,
install cabin door rod end Kit 70186-004.
    (2) If threaded sleeve is not installed at the cabin door rod
end, install cabin door rod end Kit 70186-005.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (f) The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Wess Rouse, Aerospace Engineer, Chicago ACO, 2300 East Devon
Avenue, Room 107, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018; telephone: (847) 294-
8113; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

Related Information

    (g) To get copies of the service information referenced in this
AD, contact Cirrus Design Corporation, 4515 Taylor Circle, Duluth,
Minnesota 55811, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To view the AD docket,
go to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at http://
dms.dot.gov. The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2007-28245;
Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-047-AD.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on March 26, 2008.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-6786 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 31)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8633-8635]
[DOCID:fr14fe08-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0198]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Regulations; Stonington, ME, Deer Island Thorofare,
Penobscot Bay, ME

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish Crotch Island Special
Anchorage in Stonington, Maine, on Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot
Bay. This action is necessary to facilitate safe navigation in that
area and to provide safe and secure anchorage for vessels of not more
than 65 feet. This proposal is intended to increase the safety for life
and property on Deer Island Thorofare, improve the safety of anchored
vessels, create workable boundaries for future mooring expansion, and
provide for the overall safe and efficient flow of recreational vessels
and commerce.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before April 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpw) (USCG-2007-0198), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave.,
Boston, Massachusetts 02110, who maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at room 628, First Coast Guard District Boston, between 8 a.m.
and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander (dpw),
First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston, Massachusetts
02110, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-
0198), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know
they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Management Branch at
the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The proposed rule is the result of collaboration with the Town of
Stonington's Harbor Committee and Town Council to accommodate vessels
mooring in the area. The proposed rule would establish Crotch Island
Special Anchorage area organized from the current accommodations of
approximately 500 moorings. The proposed rule is designed to aid the
Town of Stonington in enforcing its mooring and boating regulations by
clearly defining the available mooring fields. In addition, the
proposed rule will ensure that there are transient anchorage areas
available, and extend the convenience of a special anchorage to local
vessel owners. The areas under consideration are currently established
mooring areas.
    In developing this proposed rule, the Coast Guard has consulted
with the Army Corps of Engineers, Northeast, located at 696 Virginia
Road, Concord, MA 01742.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would create Crotch Island Special Anchorage area
located at the town of Stonington,

Maine, on Deer Island Thorofare, Penobscot Bay.
    All waters enclosed by a line beginning at a point on the northeast
shore of Crotch Island located at latitude 44[deg]08'51.0'' N,
longitude 068[deg]40'06.0'' W; thence southerly along the shoreline to
latitude 44[deg]08'36.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'07.02'' W; thence to
latitude 44[deg]08'36.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'04.02'' W; thence to
latitude 44[deg]08'46.98'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'00.0'' W; thence to
latitude 44[deg]08'55.02'' N, longitude 068[deg]39'49.02'' W; thence to
latitude 44[deg]08'54.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'06.0'' W thence back
to origin.
    All proposed coordinates are North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83).
    This special anchorage area would be limited to vessels no greater
than 65 feet in length. Vessels not more than 65 feet in length are not
required to sound signals as required by rule 35 of the Inland
Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C. 2035) nor exhibit anchor lights or shapes
required by rule 30 of the Inland Navigation Rules (33 U.S.C 2030) when
at anchor in a special anchorage area. Mariners utilizing this
anchorage area are encouraged to contact local and state authorities,
such as the local harbormaster, to ensure compliance with any
additional applicable state and local laws. Such laws may involve, for
example, compliance with direction from the local harbormaster when
placing or using moorings within the anchorage.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed 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.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    This finding is based on the fact that this proposal conforms to
the changing needs of the Town of Stonington, the changing needs of
recreational, fishing and commercial vessels, and to make the best use
of the available navigable water. The proposed special anchorage area
does not impede the passage of recreational or commercial vessels as
they are not located in the primary entrance channel to Stonington
Harbor. The proposed special anchorage area is a consolidation and
delineation of existing mooring fields. Thus, this special anchorage
area will have a minimal economic impact. This proposed rule is in the
interest of safe navigation, protection of the vessels moored at the
Town of Stonington, and protection of the marine environment.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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 proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners or operators of recreational
or commercial vessels intending to transit in a portion of the Deer
Island Thorofare in and around this special anchorage area. However,
this special anchorage area would not have a significant economic
impact on these entities for the following reasons: The proposed
special anchorage area is not located near the primary entrance into
Stonington Harbor nor will it impede safe and efficient vessel transit
in the area.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Mr. John J. Mauro, Commander
(dpw), First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Ave., Boston,
Massachusetts 02110, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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 proposed rule would call 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 proposed 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 or more in any
one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an
expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments, because it would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this
case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. This rule fits
the category selected from paragraph (34)(f) as it would establish a
special anchorage area.
    A preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' is available in
the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section
will be considered before we make the final decision on whether this
rule should be categorically excluded from further environmental review
and documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471; 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035 and
2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

    2. Amend Sec.  110.4 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.4  Penobscot Bay, Maine.

* * * * *
    (e) Stonington Harbor, Deer Island Thorofare--(1) Crotch Island.
All of the waters enclosed by a line beginning at the northeast shore
of Crotch Island located at: latitude 44[deg]08'51.0'' N, longitude
068[deg]40'06.0'' W; thence southerly along the shoreline to latitude
44[deg]08'36.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'07.02'' W; thence to latitude
44[deg]08'36.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'04.02'' W; thence to latitude
44[deg]08'46.98'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'00.0'' W; thence to latitude
44[deg]08'55.02'' N, longitude 068[deg]39'49.02'' W; thence to latitude
44[deg]08'54.0'' N, longitude 068[deg]40'06.0'' W thence back to
origin.
    DATUM: NAD 83.
    (2) [Reserved]

    Note to Sec.  110.4(e): An ordinance of the Town of Stonington,
Maine requires the approval of the Stonington Harbor Master for the
location and type of moorings placed in these special anchorage
areas. All anchoring in the areas are under the supervision of the
Stonington Harbor Master or other such authority as may be
designated by the authorities of the Town of Stonington, Maine. All
moorings are to be so placed that no moored vessel will extend
beyond the limit of the area.

    Dated: January 17, 2008.
Timothy S. Sullivan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
 [FR Doc. E8-2693 Filed 2-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


1Section 182( b)( 3) specifies that EPA would approve any request from a State to reclassify to a higher classification. Technical Support Document for Muskegon County, Michigan September 2004 1.0 Summary On July 15, 2004 Steven Chester, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ( MDEQ) Director and Governor's designee, submitted a request to reclassify Muskegon County from Moderate ozone nonattainment to Marginal ozone nonattainment. A subsequent submittal supplying additional information was made on August 20, 2004. The petition is based on the area's Moderate design value of 95 ppb being within 5% of the maximum Marginal design value of 91 ppb as allowed by the Clean Air Act.

EPA has reviewed this request and believes the area should be reclassified as Marginal ozone nonattainment.

2.0 Introduction This section describes the statutory provisions and EPA guidance regarding reclassification of ozone nonattainment areas. Sections 181( a)( 4) and 182( b)( 3) of the Clean Air Act provide that areas may be reclassified under certain circumstances. This technical support document addresses the provisions of section 181( a)( 4) and a specific request for reclassifications received by the State of Michigan. The EPA has not received any requests for reclassification under section 182( b)( 3) for the 8 hour ozone standard. 1 Under section 181( a)( 4), an ozone nonattainment area may be reclassified " if an area classified under paragraph ( 1) ( Table 1) would have been classified in another category if the design value in the area were 5 percent greater or 5 percent less than the level on which such classification was based." In the April 30, 2004 notice, we indicated that an area with a moderate design value of 96 ppb ( or less) would be eligible to request a bump down because five percent less than 96 ppb is 91 ppb, a marginal design value.

The EPA previously described criteria to implement the section 181( a)( 4) provisions in a final rule designating and classifying areas published on November 6, 1991 ( 56 FR 56698). As stated in that notice, the provisions of section 181( a)( 4) set out general criteria and grant the Administrator broad discretion in making or determining not to make, a reclassification. As part of the  2

1991 action, EPA developed more specific criteria to evaluate whether it is appropriate to reclassify a particular area. The EPA also described these criteria in the April 30, 2004 final rule. The general and specific criteria are as follows:

General: The EPA may consider the number of exceedances of the national primary ambient air quality standard for ozone in the area, the level of pollution transport between the area and other affected areas, including both intrastate and interstate transport, and the mix of sources and air pollutants in the area.

Request by State: The EPA does not intend to exercise its authority to bump down areas on EPA's own initiative. Rather, EPA intends to rely on the State to submit a request for a bump down. A Tribe may also submit such a request and, in the case of a multi state nonattainment area, all affected States must submit the reclassification request.

Discontinuity: A five percent reclassification must not result in an illogical or excessive discontinuity relative to surrounding areas. In particular, in light of the areawide nature of ozone formation, a reclassification should not create a " donut hole" where an area of one classification is surrounded by areas of higher classification.

Attainment: Evidence should be available that the proposed area would be able to attain by the earlier date specified by the lower classification in the case of a bump down.

Emissions reductions: Evidence should be available that the area would be very likely to achieve the appropriate total percent emission reduction necessary in order to attain in the shorter time period for a bump down.

Trends: Near and long term trends in emissions and air quality should support a reclassification. Historical air quality data should indicate substantial air quality improvement for a bump down. Growth projections and emission trends should support a bump down. In addition, we will consider whether vehicle miles traveled and other indicators of emissions are increasing at higher than normal rates.

Years of data: For the 8 hour ozone standard, the 2001 2003 period is central to determining classification. Data from 2004 may be used to corroborate a bump down request but  3

should not be the sole foundation for the bump down request.

Limitations on Bump Downs An area may only be reclassified to the next lower classification. An area cannot present data from other years as justification to be reclassified to an even lower classification. In addition, section 181( a)( 4) does not permit moving areas from subpart 2 into subpart 1.

In 1991, EPA approved reclassifications when the area met the first requirement ( a request by the State to EPA) and at least some of the other criteria and did not violate any of the criteria ( emissions, reductions, trends, etc.). In our April 30, 2004 final rule on designations and classifications, we stated our intention to use this method and these criteria once again to evaluate reclassification requests under section 181( a)( 4), with minor changes described in that notice. In that notice we also described how we applied these criteria in 1991. For additional information, see section 5, " Areas requesting a 5% downshift per § 181( a)( 4) and EPA's response to those requests," of the Technical Support Document, October 1991, for the 1991 rule. [ Docket A 90 42A.]

EPA is not basing this reclassification determination on consideration of whether the nonattainment area being reclassified does or does not cause any pollution transport. The EPA is presently addressing ozone pollution transport issues throughout the eastern part of the United States under other Clean Air Act provisions. Specifically, EPA has proposed a determination that emissions from certain states contribute significantly to downwind nonattainment for ozone under CAA section 110( a)( 2)( D) through the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). The CAIR proposal, published in a Federal Register notice dated January 30, 2004, would require upwind States to eliminate emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in downwind States. 69 Fed. Reg. 454566. The EPA previously issued the NOx SIP call ( 63 FR 57356) to address interstate ozone transport. In the event of any intrastate transport issue, states have the obligation to develop attainment SIPs for each area that show timely attainment, and can address any intrastate transport issues in that context.

The April 30, 2004 notice invited States to submit the reclassification requests within 30 days of the effective date of the designations and classifications. The effective date was June 15 which means that reclassification requests were to be submitted by July 15, 2004. This relatively short time frame is necessary because section 181( a)( 4) only authorizes the  4

Administrator to make such reclassifications within 90 days after the initial classification, September 15, 2004.

3.0 Background Muskegon County is highly impacted by transport due to the Lake Michigan ozone phenomenon. Muskegon County has few major sources. EPA designated this area as Moderate due to high 8 hour values ( design value is 95 ppb) and 1 hour values ( 121 ppb).

4.0 Reclassification Request by State The State argues that Muskegon County should receive a reclassification from Moderate to Marginal. The demonstration is based on modeling showing progress toward attainment by the Marginal attainment date ( 2007), identification of the ozone transport problem in the area, and a demonstration of less than one percent of contribution from local sources.

5.0 EPA Review of the Reclassification Request 5.1 Request by State The request was submitted by Steven Chester, Director of Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The MDEQ Director is the Governor's designee.

5.2 Discontinuity If Muskegon County is reclassified from Moderate to Marginal, this will not result in a discontinuity or " donut hole." All of the counties immediately bordering Muskegon County are either designated as attainment or are Subpart 1 nonattainment.

5.3 Attainment The Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium ( LADCo) used modeling results performed to support the 1 hour ozone attainment demonstration for the Lake Michigan area and applied 8 hour ozone metrics. This modeling conducted by LADCo indicates that Muskegon County will be near attainment ( 86 ppb) in 2007. However, as noted in Michigan's petition, the LADCO subregional modeling was completed in 2001 and designed to assess 1 hour ozone and, as such, there are some limitations with using it to assess 8 hour ozone. Since this modeling was performed before the Heavy Duty Engine rule was proposed, it does not reflect  5

2Engine manufacturers will have flexibility to meet the new standards through a phase in approach between 2007 and 2010. The fuel provision will go into effect in June 2006 and will be phased in through 2009. emission reductions from that national program. 2 Use of a more recent emission inventory and base design value would likely result in lower predicted concentrations. On the other hand, it should be noted that three of the four modeled episodes are representative periods for high 8 hour ozone and basecase model performance for 8 hour ozone was found to be as good as ( or better than) that for 1 hour ozone ( page 7 of the IDEM & LADCo July 2004 " Photochemical Modeling Analysis of 8 Hour Ozone for LaPorte County").

Additional, regional scale, modeling from the January 2004 proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule however, indicates the area will be in attainment ( 82 ppb) by 2010. The CAIR modeling, however, was not designed to provide results for years prior to 2010.

In summary, EPA believes the LADCo and CAIR modeling analyses are not conclusive with respect to Muskegon's attainment status in 2007. Although neither analysis is as comprehensive an assessment as would be expected with a SIP attainment demonstration, they do provide support for a decision to reclassify the area. Both modeling analyses indicate air quality will be improving over the next several years.

5.4 Emissions Reductions Because this area is so heavily impacted by transported pollution from upwind areas, it would be difficult to show that reductions from the area will help to achieve the area's earlier attainment date. It can be expected that ozone values will continue to decrease due to the implementation of various rules such as the NOx SIP Call, Tier II/ Low Sulfur, Heavy Duty Diesel Engine standards/ low sulfur diesel, and other national rules. In addition, implementation of emission reductions contained in 1 hour ozone attainment plans in the Lake Michigan area will further reduce emissions.

Other voluntary measures being implemented in the Lake Michigan area include:

° Schoolbus, nonroad vehicle and garbage truck diesel retrofit programs ° Alternative fuel fleets  6

3The ozone values for the 2004 ozone season through September 1 and are preliminary. ° Gas can replacement programs ° Lawmower buyback programs ° Educational outreach programs and ozone action days 5.5 Trends A short term analysis show that the 4th high ozone values in the area decreasing.

2002 4th high was 96 ppb 2003 4th high was 94 ppb 20043 4th high was 70 ppb Further, it can be expected that ozone values will continue at these lower levels due to the implementation of various rules such as the NOx SIP Call, Tier II/ Low Sulfur, Heavy Duty Diesel Engine standards/ low sulfur diesel, and other national rules. In addition, implementation of emission reductions contained in 1 hour ozone attainment plans in the Lake Michigan area will further reduce emissions and improve air quality.

5.6 Years of Data The design value being used is a 2001 2003 value. The Muskegon monitor's design value is 95 ppb.

5.7 Additional Information Muskegon is affected by overwhelming transport from the Lake Michigan ozone phenomenon. LADCo modeling indicates that less than one percent of the ozone recorded at the Muskegon monitor can be attributed to local ( i. e., Muskegon Co.) emissions.

5.8 Conclusions The following factors support the request for downward revision to the 8 hour ozone classification for Muskegon County: the design value of 95 ppb meets our criteria to qualify for consideration of bump down, local and regional modeling analyses indicate air quality will be improving over the next several years, a short term trends analysis shows ozone values decreasing and additional reductions from regional and national regulations will continue this trend in lowering ambient ozone values.

5.9 EPA Action  7

The request meets certain criteria EPA established ( request, discontinuity, emission reductions, trends, and data) and does not violate any of the criteria ( attainment). Therefore, EPA is approving the reclassification request for Muskegon County.

6.0 Additional Information Additional information regarding the bump down request for this area is contained in the docket for this action. This information includes the State request, supporting documents, and other necessary material.