Comments	Action/Response	Page

EPA

In general, the NHEERL reviewers concluded that the studies were
conducted in accordance with the testing guidelines, once changes
detailed in the API peer review response are made.	No action needed

OK

	Additional comment is requested on the following points.

A statistically significant difference in liver/body weight ratio was
seen in the 20,000mg/m3 exposure group. This effect occurred in the
high-dose treatment group and thus appears to be treatment-related.	This
increase was only seen in males.  Absolute liver wts of both sexes and
female relative wt were comparable to controls.  Additional text has
been added to Results and Discussion OK	37

As pointed out by the peer reviewers' comments and the study group
response, differences were observed in the prostate weights and weight
ratios of all treatment groups. The study group, however, disregarded
this outcome and concluded that the reproductive NOEL was 20,000mg/m3.
Increases in accessory sex organ weights are used as a marker of
androgen action.  Since statistically significant changes were seen in
all treatment groups as either absolute weights or weight ratios, a
reproductive NOEL for this endpoint cannot be concluded from this study.
Therefore, we propose that the lowest exposure concentration employed
(2,000 mg/m3) be considered as a LOAEL.	Additional text has been added
to Results and Discussion.  Because intergroup differences in prostate
weight are seen without a dose response and they are not consistent with
other endocrine-sensitive organs, even in the same animal and further,
there are no histopathological findings, it is considered inappropriate
to adjust the NOAEL based on these intergroup differences.  The
reproductive NOAEL = 20,000mg/m3 has replaced the NOEL cited in the
first draft.

Including reference to results of the 13-week study (90 days there vs.
105 days here see response to Dr. Schlesinger below) is helpful since no
significant increases in prostate weight or histopathologic changes were
reported in the companion 13-week study.	38

7

Peer Reviewer – Schlesinger

The study was conducted in a scientifically sound manner and followed
the appropriate protocols. There were no significant deviations from
these protocols that would have affected the outcome of the study. The
investigators conclude that the NOAEL was 10,000mg/m3. However, as noted
below, this reviewer feels that a significant effect on prostate weight
occurred even at the 2,000 level. Thus, the investigators need to better
justify their conclusion in this regard.	Dr. Schlesinger is correct that
the prostate weight changes should not be discounted Additional text has
been added to Results and Discussion. The discussion of intergroup
differences in prostate weight provided above in the response to EPA for
reproductive NOAEL apply here.  Although these differences may result in
the inability to establish a NOEL, it is considered inappropriate to
adjust the systemic NOAEL from 10000mg/m3 based on these observations.
OK

Increases in prostate absolute weight and weight relative to brain
weight are statistically significant at the low and high doses, and
elevated but not statistically significant at the mid dose.  When
prostate wt are compared to final body wt, statistical significance was
observed at all three exposure levels and demonstrated a plateau effect
across 3 levels; this significance was not unexpected since terminal
body wt of male rats showed a slight (not statistically significant)
exposure-responsive decrease.  No microscopic abnormalities of the
prostate gland were observed which would correlate with increased organ
weight (p. 39, Table 23; Appendix Z).  In addition, no significant
increases in prostate weight or histopathologic changes were reported in
the companion 13-week study. OK	38,

Table 23, Appendix Z

General Comment

The exposure group numbering is not consistent in the report. In some
places this is given as I, 11,111, IV and in others as 1,2,3,4.	This
inconsistency was brought to the attention of the study director and,
where practical based on computer system limitations, adjustments were
made.  However, in computer generated tables and compilation of raw data
the number format is predetermined.  This observation does not affect
the validity of the data. OK	various

p. 29. 2.15.1.

Justification for the use of two levels of significance is needed. Also,
there only seems to be one additional test used, the Dunnett, and not
"tests" as indicated in text.

Finally, it is noted that statistical testing was not done when the
standard deviation was zero. The investigators should have examined
other tests that could have been used in such cases.	These levels of
significance were pre-selected since they were inherent in the
laboratory’s computer statistical package.  Comparison at two levels
of significance has been common practice in this laboratory.

Only Dunnett’s test was used to compare group means to control means
of continuous data.  The report text has been clarified.

This is a standard statement for the statistical methods section.  In
this study, Table 1 Summary of Survival and Pregnancy provides examples
of where the n is 0 or 1 and this statement is relevant.  These events
are also observed in macro/micropathology incidence data.  No
statistical analyses are applied. OK	29

p. 33. 3.1.

The explanation given for the difference between the measured and
nominal concentrations involves assumed inaccuracies in the calibration
of chamber airflow and the IR monitor. There is no reason why the IR
monitor in particular should not have been accurately calibrated using
accepted procedure. A similar comment applies to the airflow measures.

What accounts for the particles in the chambers, especially the control
chamber.  Was a filter used to clean the incoming air and if not why
not?

To be precise, the report stated that the ratio of the measured to
nominal concentration was not 1:1, and speculated that the cause MAY
have been due calibration error. In any event, the inaccuracies between
nominal and actual analytical concentrations were slight, and the
analytical concentrations were no more than 1.5% higher than the target
concentrations..  The RG feels confident that the reported chamber
concentrations accurately reflect the atmospheres to which the animals
were exposed.  Text has been clarified OK

With regard to the presence of particles, the RG notes that the mean
particle concentrations were comparable between the control and
treatment group chambers. The primary purpose of making these
measurements in a study of this nature (high vapor concentrations) is to
make certain that vapor condensation is not occurring and to preclude
the possibility of aerosol formation. The results provided in the report
confirm that gasoline + ETOH exposure was to vapors and not aerosols.
Some particles are invariably present in chamber atmospheres,
representing background levels. In fact, careful analysis of the data in
the table on page 34 indicates that the particle concentrations in all
of the chambers including controls ranged from about 4 to 5
micrograms/cubic meter of air with the exception of the low dose group
(2000mg/m3) where total mass concentration was 8mg/m3.  For comparison,
it has been reported in EPA's PM 10 Criteria document that annual
background PM 10 levels in eastern cities range from 5 to 11 micrograms
/cubic meter of air. Thus, the RG believes that the particles in the
chambers reflect ambient background values. OK

32

33

p. 38. 3.4.2 and Table 21.

There appears to be an increase in prostate weight that is relatively
consistent at all exposure levels even though it does not reach
statistical significance at the 10,000 level. This is discounted by the
investigators since it did not occur in what is termed a
"treatment-related pattern." However, to this reviewer, this seems to be
a real effect even though it did not follow a standard dose-response
profile. There are instances where an effect will be observed that
reaches a plateau even with increasing exposure concentration. Thus, the
investigator's logic that resulted in discounting this effect is
potentially flawed.

See response to EPA and Dr. Schlesinger’s first comment.  This issue
was also addressed by Dr. Goldsworthy and the 211(b) scientific
reviewer.

Additional text has been added to Results and Discussion OK

38

Peer Reviewer – Goldsworthy

The study was scientifically sound and was properly conducted.  Exposure
were properly conducted and adequate to test the potential reproductive
toxicity of Gasoline Ethanol Vapor Condensate.  None of the protocol
deviations noted would be expected to adversely effect study results or
data integrity.	No action needed OK

	No effect of treatment was noted on survival, clinical observations,
body weights, estrus cycles, mating, fertility or gestation indices, or
on other reproductive parameters up to parturiton.  An exposure-related
decrease in body weight gain was observed in high dosed male rats during
the pre-mating interval.  No treatment differences were observed with
pregnancy rates, duration of gestation and percent of females completing
delivery.  No difference between treated and control groups were noted
in all parturition parameters, including total number of pups delivered,
viability and lactation indices, the number of implantation sites per
litter, the pup sex ratio, and the number live pups per litter.
Additionally, sperm count, motility and morphology was not altered by
treatment.	No action needed OK

	There were no exposure-related differences in macroscopic postmortem
assessments.  Increased kidney weights were observed in male rats
(parental generation) at all exposure levels; this is consistent with
the expected induction of hydrocarbon nephropathy.  Microscopic
evaluation was not performed to confirm this observation.  Hydrocarbon
nephropathy is generally not considered to be relevant for human risk
assessment.  There were statistical differences noted in prostate organ
weights in low and high dose treatment groups; these differences were
considered not attributed to the test article because of the small
absolute differences noted and the lack of a treatment-related pattern.
There were no exposure-related differences in body weights, macroscopic
postmortem evaluations and organ weights in the lactating pups from Air
Control animals.	No action needed OK

	In summary, a NOAEL of 10,000 mg/m3 was determined based on the
decreased body weight gain in the 20,000 mg/m3 exposed parental male
animals.  There was no effect at any exposure level on reproductive
performances.  This, with respect to reproduction performance, a NOEL of
20,000 mg/m3 was concluded.  I concur that these data support these
conclusions.	No action needed OK

	The statistical differences in prostate weight (as noted on page 38 and
in Tables 21) should be noted and commented on in the summary section
(page 6, bottom or page 7 top) when discussing organ weights.	See
response to EPA and Dr. Schlesinger’s first comment. Additional text
has been added to Results and Discussion It was agreed between the WG
and contractor that because the prostate weight differences should not
alter the NOAEL it was not appropriate to cite them in the Summary. OK
38

211 (b) Research Group Reviewer

General Comments

The report should have sequential numbering in it's entirety. There are
multiple pages that are identified as "Appendix A, page 1 " including
Appendix A page 1, Appendix A's Appendix A page 1, and Appendix A's
Table II, page 1. This is unnecessarily confusing. Maybe this has
already been changed for other reports.	Final report will be fully
paginated from cover to cover OK

	Specific Comments

P. 5, Summary, 4th paragraph.

I suggest changing the word, "reasonably" to "acceptably," since there
should be SOP or protocol specific criteria for concordance of nominal
and analytical concentration measurements. I recommend this change later
in this paragraph also on p. 6.	Revised to “acceptably” OK	5, 6

Suggest deleting the sentence beginning: "The exact cause of the
differences ." as unnecessary.	Deleted OK	5

P. 14, 2.4.7, Analysis.

Please indicate that the purity analysis of the test substance is
included in the report.

Added to section 2.4.3 OK

14

P. 15, 2.4.9, Dispensing.

The test substance was provided as follows, from a reply that I received
from Mike Henley:

The contract is with Global Technology Company sub-contracting Chevron
Research and Technology Company to provide the test substance.

Please correct the supplier to either Chevron Global Technology Company
or Chevron Research and Technology Company, whichever QA considers to be
most appropriate.	Revised to “Chevron Global Technology Services
Company” as per other reports. OK

	15

P. 18, 2.9.4, Feed Analysis.

typo: "feed" should not be followed by a comma.	Corrected OK	18

P. 19, 2.9.9, Temperature.

The low end for the actual range is quite different than the desired
range. I think this should be described by date in the protocol
deviations.	 This was a transient difference that is already noted as
not affecting the study. OK	19

P. 30, 2.1 5.2, Sperm Motility Analysis.

typo grammatical error: "Statistical were performed.. ."	Corrected to
‘statistical analysis’ OK	29-30

P. 33, 3.1, 1st paragraph.

At 2000 mg/m3, H-7 was 137% of the reference standard. Is this within
the criteria for even distribution?	This value was reassessed on the
following day and was within 5% of target OK	32, Appendix A

Please delete "at least" from the second sentence. All of the readings
were 20%, not greater (if I am in error here, please provide
correction).	Corrected OK	32

3rd paragraph (below table) .

As previously, I suggest changing the word, "reasonably" to "acceptably"
regarding concordance between nominal and analytical chamber
concentrations. I also suggest deleting the sentence beginning, "The
exact cause of the differences ...." as unnecessary. If the differences
were within an acceptable range, there is nothing to explain.	Corrected
OK	32

Please see comment above regarding Appendix A.	This value was reassessed
on the following day and was within 5% of target OK	Appendix A

P. 34, last paragraph.

I suggest changing the word reasonably to satisfactorily or acceptably.
Changed to “acceptably” in last paragraph, first sentence OK	33

P. 35, 3.2.2, Physical Observation Data.

Appendix E, gestation data, includes data for the nonpregnant females;
it should not.	These non-pregnant females were considered pregnant based
on plug or smear data are therefore included in this table. Appendix E
should be footnoted for this, and/or the individual females that were
not pregnant should be noted as such (either option is OK)	34, Appendix
E

3.2.3, Body Weights - Premating.

Male data should have both the total premating period body weight gain
and the total (days 0-105) body weight gain data value in Table 5.	Table
corrected [now Table 6] OK	Table 6

P. 36, 3.2.5, Feed Consumption.

Please indicate that the statistically significant interval was for
group 4 females, day 28-35.	Revised OK	35

3.2.7, Estrous Cyclicity Data.

The control group includes one female with a single 17 day cycle
(#1561), and another with a typical 4 day cycle and a 13 day cycle
(#1557). Both of these had extended diestrus, which as you point out in
the text is indicative of pseudopregnancy. Another female in this
situation is #2568, with 15 day and 4 day cycles. These values appear to
be artifactual rather than biological, with the potential to skew the
group mean. Please respond as to whether one or more of these animals
should be excluded from the group mean for statistical comparison
between control and exposed groups.	The periods of pseudopregnancy were
excluded from calculated values.  Entry added to the preface for Table
14 OK – Appendix P shows the excluded values clearly (nice job!)

	35, Table 14

3.2.8, Mating, Fertility, and Gestation Indices.

Table 15 has the endpoint, Females with defined day 0 of gestation.
However, this is really the insemination date, as a few of these animals
never delivered. Is it possible to footnote the table, or change the
description, to better reflect the data shown in this row?	Table has
been footnoted. OK	Table 15

P. 37, 3.3.1, Pup Body Weight Data.

There is no appendix for pup body weight gain.	This is not possible due
to TASC computer system limitations.  TASC does the weight gain
calculation but does not generate a table of the individual data. OK :o(

	P. 38, 3.4.2, Parental Organ Weights.

Although the increase in prostate weight was only dose-responsive as a
ratio to body weight, all dose groups were elevated (2K and 20K
statistically significant). I think that the explanation for not
attributing these differences to exposure would benefit by commenting
upon the usual range of weight for this organ at this animal age.

Additional text has been added to Results and Discussion.  Summary of
control data from other 1-2 generation studies in this program were
reviewed and discussed with WG without being added to the text.  No
other BG+oxygenate study showed similar prostate weight changes.
Including reference to results of the 13-week study (90 days there vs.
105 days) is helpful since no significant increases in prostate weight
or histopathologic changes were reported in the companion 13-week study.

38

Page 39, 3.4.4, Macroscopic Pup Evaluation.

Appendix S and U, as well as W, include pup observations for
stillborn/dead, and these should be referenced here. Stillborn data is
also in Table 16.	Table 16 was previously references in appropriate
sections of Results & Discussion [see Sect 3.2.9].  Appendices
references updated OK	36, 38

It is important that these various sources of data match. For example,
Table 20, p. 2, lists 5 stillborn for Group 2, but only 3 as stillborn
from the lung floatation test. Appendix S lists 5 stillborn, Appendix U
lists 5 stillborn. There is no explanation in the table as to why these
other two pups are not identified by the lung floatation test. The
individual data indicate "postmortem changes obvious at the time of
necropsy." I assume that the SOP considers Day 0 nonviable pups that
cannot be tested to be stillborn, but shouldn't that outcome be listed
as a third choice in Table 20? The same query exists for Group 4.	Added
to sect. 2.13.2:“If the lung flotation test was not conducted, then
the pup was categorized as stillborn.” OK	36

Table 3, page 1.

group 4 data includes observations for nonpregnant animal	The
nonpregnant females were considered pregnant based on plug or smear data
and are therefore included in this table OK if footnoted.	Table 3

Table 5.

Males should also have total (days 0-105 body weight gain data.

Table 6 corrected  OK	Table 6

Table 6, page 3.

Male data should show: day 84-91, 91 -98, 98-1 05, and 0-1 05	Table 6
corrected OK	Table 6

Table 14.

Please see comment above for p. 36. The control data seems to be unduly
influenced by two cycles that appear to be pseudopregnancy.

The periods of pseudopregnancy were excluded from calculated values.
Entry

added to the preface for Table 14 OK

Table 14

Table 15, page 1.

please see comment for 3.2.8, page 36.	Table has been footnoted OK	Table
15

Table 21, page 4.

should list female body weight on the table for absolute organ weights,
just as done for the males.	Added to Table 21, page 3. OK	Table 21

Appendix A, page 6,2.3.2.

typo: "characterized" (no d at the end)	Corrected couldn’t find on
recheck, so assume OK	Appendix A, p. 7; 2.3.2

Appendix E.

The data for the nonpregnant female appears to be included in
gestational observations (#4565).	The nonpregnant females were
considered pregnant based on plug or smear data and are therefore
included in this table OK as long as it’s footnoted	Appendix E

Appendix N.

Food consumption for GD 0-20, which appears in Table 12, should also be
presented.	Added OK	Appendix N

Appendix O.

Food consumption for LD 0-28 should also be presented.	LD1-28 is
presented since feed consumption per protocol was not measured on LD0 OK
Appendix O

Appendix P.

There are three females with estrus cycles that may be artifactual
rather than biological; please review. These are for animals 1557, 1561
(both controls), and 2568 (2000 mg/m3). If these are likely to be
artifactual, they should not be used to calculate the group mean value.

The periods of pseudopregnancy were excluded from calculated values.
This information is added to the preface for Table 14 OK

Table 14

211(b) Research Group QA/QC Reviewer

The following items are comments or require further consideration:

Draft Report, Page 2, Compliance Statement.

Since it was the sponsor’s responsibility to maintain the method of
synthesis, fabrication, or derivation of the test fuel, and this had not
been completed during the study, it must be included in the sponsor’s
compliance statement.	Added OK, but needs to match the other studies.  I
believe the statement indicates that the ‘information was not
available during the study, but is now available with the Sponsor.’	2

Draft Report, Page 4, QA Statement.

Is the first entry of Subcontractor Facility Inspection, a PAI
inspection? Please clarify and add PAI’s facility inspection to the
list, if this is not referencing PAI.	Added - OK	4

Draft Report, Page 14, Section 2.4.7, Analysis.

The last sentence in this paragraph indicates that a purity was done
4/27/01 after the start of study 6127. This was well before the start of
this study, so it is not necessary here.	Deleted - OK	14

Draft Report, Page 16, Weight At Initiation of Exposures.

The female weight range should be 112-175 not 185.	Corrected - OK	16

Draft Report, Page 20, Air Changes.

The raw data documents the air changes in Room 708 as 14.1 and in Room
809 as 14.7. Therefore, the actual range in the report should be 14.1
– 14.7, not 12.6 – 14.6 per hour.	Corrected - OK	20

Draft Report, Page 23, Postmortem, Parental Animals (Po), Necropsy
Information.

The first sentence is confusing. All parental animals were necropsied
(26/sex/group). Even if the animal died before its scheduled 3
sacrifice, a necropsy was performed. The sentence should state all
animals necropsied.	Corrected - OK	23

Draft Report, Page 34.

The total mass concentration for group three should be 4.25 x 10-3.
Corrected - ok	33

Draft Report, Page 35, Body Weights, Premating Period.

The first sentence states “an exposure-related decrease in body weight
gain was seen in the 20000 mg/m3 male animals”. This statement should
be clarified since this level was only statistically significant for the
days 0 to 7 and 14 to 21. The decrease in weight gain was slight or
comparable to the other treatment groups. The body weight values for the
2000 mg/m3 do show an exposure-related decrease, not the body weight
gain values This correction should also be made in the report
Conclusion, Page 40, and Summary, Pages 6 and 7.	Summary and Results and
Discussion clarified that body weight gain was decreased in the
20,000mg/m3 animals during the initial 3 weeks of the study.  OK	34

39, 7

Draft Report, Page 36, Feed Consumption, Premating Period.

The second sentence states that a statistically significant difference
was noted at one interval. Table 11 reports two intervals as
statistically significant – Group III Day 0 and Group IV Day 35. This
section of the text should be corrected to agree with the table.	Day 0
is the end of the pretest interval.  There fore, Results and Discussion
clarified that “A statistically significant difference was only noted
at one interval (days 28-35 for the 20000mg/m3 female animals) after
exposures were initiated. - OK	35

Table 3.

The observation for terminal sacrifice has not been included as an
observation. The observation does occur in Appendix E but has not been
tabulated for the females that were terminated on Day 25 of gestation.
Corrected - OK	Table 3

Table 14, Group 4, Cycle Length.

Please verify the Standard Deviation for this parameter. It appears that
it should be 0.41, not 0.40. Is there another digit that is not shown
that the computer uses in calculations for this parameter? Otherwise, it
is not clear why there would be an error. 	SD rounded to 0.4 - OK	Table
14

Draft Report, Table 16 and Appendix R, Duration of Gestation.

In Table 16 the Standard Deviation is reported to two decimal places
while in Appendix R this value is reported as one decimal place. These
values should agree in both instances.	They do agree but due to computer
program limitations, the results are presented to different numbers of
significant figures.  Appendix R was regenerated with revised rounding
rules (1decimal place) after Table 16 was printed. OK	Table 16

Draft Report, Table 17.

The lacerations for litter 1562 pups 3, 9 and 14 as reported in Appendix
T are not tabulated on Summary Table 17.	Tabulated on Summary Table 17 -
OK	Table 17

Draft Report, Table 18, Page 4, 5 & 6.

These pages report summary data for mean pup weight gain. An individual
data table is not available to support these means. Should an individual
value table be included in the report?	This is not possible due to TASC
computer system limitations.  TASC does the weight gain calculation but
does not generate a table of the individual data. - OK	Table 18

Draft Report, Table 20, Page 5, Skin, Group II, Litter Incidence.

 Pup Incidence should 0, 0 not 1, 1.	OK as is – pup #2571-1F had skin
observations.  - ok	Table 20

Table 23, Appendix Z.

It is unclear from the gross to microscopic pathology data reported in
Appendix Z whether or not the gross lesions were examined for any of the
animals. Only the randomly selected animals should have had gross
lesions examined, but it is unclear for the rest of them. The comment,
“no micropathology observations on tissue” implies that these
tissues were reviewed, yet below it is indicated that, “no tissues
examined”. As well, the summary Table 14 does not tabulate these
tissues as having been examined microscopically. The histopathology
worksheet for animal number 1064 also does not indicate that the lesion
tissue was processed for evaluation. Please clarify the gross to
microscopic appendix to clearly indicate what was examined.

“no microscopic observations on tissue” and “no tissue examined”
both mean that tissues were not examined by the Pathologist.  If tissues
were examined, then an abnormal observation or “tissue is
unremarkable” would be noted.  OK, I guess.  	Appendix Z

Appendix A, Inhalation Report, Section 2.1.4 Environmental Conditions.

It would be helpful to indicate the frequency and duration of the
excursions from the desired ranges.	No change.  The excursions were
minor and insignificant and a tabulation is not needed   This may or may
not be true.  The reader only has access to the daily mean temperature
and humidity readings.  Excursions could be major and/or significant,
the reader can not tell.  From what the summary data indicates, 50 to
over 70% of the time, the MEAN temperatures were out of the
protocol-specified range, so it would be helpful to indicate further
extent and duration of the deviations.    	Appendix A

Appendix A, Inhalation Report, Table III, page 2.

The last line of the flowmeters indicates P/N D80026B when it should be
D8000268. The last line of the Pressure/Vacuum Gauges should read P/N SG
8383, not S6.  Please verify.	Corrected - OK	Appendix A, Table 3, p. 2

[report p. 44]

Appendix A, Inhalation Report, Table IV, page 1.

For group 2, Starting with the second H-7 sample all were taken on Jan.
12. As well, the H-3 port, in the data is not marked as such, so it is
difficult to differentiate it from the other ports.	Report corrected and
entry for H-3 clarified OK	Appendix A, Table 4, p. 1

[report p. 46]

Appendix A, Table V, Page 1, Miran Calibration.

It is indicated that The following calibration data was used for
exposures or trials between November 15, …… As well, on page 4 of
this section it should indicate that this calibration was used for
exposures between Feb. 12 and March 27th……And then on page 7, it
should indicate that this calibration was used for exposures between
March 28th and termination. It would also be helpful to talk of the
change of Mirans.	Report corrected and clarified - OK	Appendix A, p. 1
[rpt p. 48]

p. 4 [rpt p. 51]

p. 7 [rpt p. 54]

Appendix A, Inhalation Report, CMR Table, Page 12.

Please verify the values for the second and third Miran readings for May
15. It appears they are 2150 and 2330.	Report corrected - OK	Appendix A,
p. 12

Appendix A, Inhalation Report.

Pretest particle size data should be reported.  	Particle size data
added to Table VI in Appendix A  OK	Appendix A. p. 57

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Page 3, Table of Contents.

The title for Table 1 should have the words “/Trials” added after
the word “Pretest” to agree with the table heading.	Report corrected
- OK	Appendix B, p. 3

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Page 3, Table of Contents – The title
for Figure IV should have the “-A.” removed to agree with the Figure
IV heading.	Report corrected  OK	Appendix B, p. 3

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Page 4, Summary.

The first sentence is confusing. More words are needed to explain that
the test substance was obtained from the generated atmosphere of the rat
exposures.	Report corrected  OK	Appendix B, p. 4

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Page 6, Results and Discussion.

The word “pretest” should be added before the word “trials” in
the first sentence to agree with table headings.	Report corrected  OK
Appendix B, p. 6

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Page 6, Results and Discussion, second
paragraph, first line.

Add “(Table 11)” to clarify the table being discussed.  	Report
corrected  OK	Appendix B, p. 6

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Page 6, Results and Discussion.

The calculation used to correct the area % values for other components
should be added. Examples of these calculations should be stated. As
well, there need to be results and discussion he re. Was the test
substance stable and did it provide a consistent exposure atmosphere?
Calculations and examples added to this Appendix B of the report.
Discussion of the results is in the Results and Discussion section 3.1
of the main report.  OK	Appendix B, p. 6;

Results 3.1 pp33-34

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Pages 29, 30 & 31.

The trans-2-Pentane, 2 Methylpentane, 2,4 Dimethylpentane and 2,3
Dimethylpentane peaks have not been labeled on the gas chromatogram
figures II, III and IV.	These have not been added but explanatory
footnote added to figures  OK	Appendix B, p. 29, 30, 31

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Page 29, Figure II, peaks for 2,3
Dimethylbutane, N-Hexane and Benzene.

The retention times printed on this 5 figure do not agree with the raw
data values 32.65 vs. 32.780, 39.51 vs. 39.716 and 55.02 vs. 55.556,
respectively.	These are OK as is and explanatory footnote added to
figures.  No explanation of differing retention times given on figures.
Appendix B, p. 29, 30, 31

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Page 30, Figure III, peaks for N-Pentane,
2,3 Dimethylbutane, N-Hexane and Benzene.

The retention times printed on this figure do not agree with the raw
data values 22.80 vs. 22.947, 32.67 vs.  32.794, 39.52 vs. 39.727, 55.04
vs. 55.577, respectively.	These are OK as is and explanatory footnote
added to figures.  No explanation of differing retention times given on
figures.	Appendix B, p. 29, 30, 31

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Page 31, Figure IV, peaks for 2,3
Dimethylbutane, N-Hexane and Benzene.

The retention times printed on this figure do not agree with the raw
data values 32.67 vs. 32.798, 39.53 vs.  39.736, and 55.06 vs. 55.595,
respectively.	These are OK as is and explanatory footnote added to
figures.  No explanation of differing retention times given on figures.
	Appendix B, p. 29, 30, 31

Appendix B, Analytical Report, Page 11.

The corrected sample area % for Isopentane Samples 2003 & 3003 should be
reviewed (reported 38.60 vs.  38.34 calculated, 38.62 vs. 38.30).	These
values have been reviewed again and are OK as presented  ok	Appendix B,
p. 11

Appendix D.

The Clinical Observations of Terminal Sacrifice does not appear on the
tables for the male animals. The Appendix D’s observations stop at Day
105 and the summary table (Table 2) summarizes the data to Day 112.
Therefore, the observation for the terminal sacrifice on Day 112 should
appear in Appendix D.	Appendix reprinted inclusive of 107 as last day of
observations.  OK	Appendix D

Draft Report, Appendix N.

The data for Days of Gestation 0-20 has not been tabulated in this
appendix. The summary of this data is presented in Table 12 and this
table summarizes the data for this period 0-20. Therefore, this
individual data should be reported in Appendix N.	Appendix report
corrected  OK	Appendix N

This situation also is present in Appendix O and Table 13. Table 13
summarizes the data for Days 1 to 28 but the individual data is not
reported for this period in Appendix O.	Appendix report corrected  OK
Appendix O

Appendix P, page 1, animal number 1561.

Please verify the Day 49 value for this animal. It was recorded as
“E”, but then the next day it was re-evaluated and changed to
“D” with no apparent reason given.	Correct stage is D and reason
given in edit tracking print-out. [Note Appendix P was regenerated to
reflect the day on which estrus cycles were monitored within the
exposure period.  Estrus cycle monitoring started on test day 49 and
continued for 21 days before mating was started]  OK

Appendix P

Appendix P, page 2, animal number 2557.

Please verify the day 49 value for this animal as well. It is indicated
“E” in the data.	Correct stage is D and reason given in edit
tracking print-out.  OK	Appendix P

Appendix R, page 1, animal number 1567.

Please verify the duration of gestation for this animal. It appears to
be 21 days. (All other animals’ duration of gestation is based on the
day delivery begins).	Gestation was from 3 April to 25 April which is 22
days as reported  OK	Appendix R, p. 1

Draft Report, Appendix T.

The observation of “found dead” for Litter 2575 Pup 1 has not been
reported in this appendix. The pup was found dead on Day 0.	Pup was
found dead during delivery and therefore a Day 0 observation was not
recorded.  A preface page with explanation has been added to this
appendix  OK	Appendix T, added new p. 1

Draft Report, Appendix Y, Preface.

Table of Contents states P0 information.  This information should be F1
information. Appendix Y is the Pup Organ Weight data, not P0 data.
Report corrected OK	Appendix Y, preface p. 1

Appendix AA, Sperm Analysis Report.

It is unclear how the Standard Deviations were rounded in the Summary
Table 1. The Testicular Count for the Group I, Standard Deviation is
16.35 (not rounded), yet the Motility Standard Deviation of 4 is rounded
from 3.49. Please clarify.	Standard deviations rounded to same number of
decimal places as mean values OK	Appendix AA, Table 1 (p.10)

Raw Data Issues

Raw Data, Group III, Females, Animal #3552.

A terminal sacrifice printout with final body weight was not available
in the maternal data notebook. A necropsy printout was present in the
fetal pathology notebook.	Weight was not collected and a protocol
deviation was added to the data and report.  OK

	Raw Data for Female 1557.

A printout of the pathology data was not present in the Fetal Pathology
Notebook. The total implantations (13) could not be verified.	Data has
been reprinted and added to study file.  OK

	Raw data for Animal 1557, Female, Group I.

A necropsy printout was unavailable for the necropsy observations. All
other females have printouts that state the findings or state “no
gross lesions”. 	Data has been reprinted and added to study file.  OK

	All chamber trial data and memos explaining what happened when the
Ethanol and Tame studies were switched needs to be included in the data
for this study. When study numbers change, all documentation justifying
that change must be kept with study records. As well, all data needs to
be checked to verify that correct study numbers are present on all data.
Explanatory memo was added to data and study numbers corrected and
footnoted as needed.  OK

	Test material inventory records.

For large tank #10, the use of 8311.2 g needs to be added to the
tank’s inventory.	Added.  OK

	Test material receipt records.

It was not clear whether large tank #12 was also received on 4/25/01.
Please clarify and add any other dates to the report, if appropriate.
Tank #12 was also received on 25April 01 and data clarified.  OK

	Test material inventory.

Tank #10 has no net weight due to an error. If this weight is usually
taken from the Chevron value, why was it not added?	Tank #10 has net
weight of 520.0 pounds per fiber tag on cylinder as per my email of
25April01 to Pharmacy.  OK

	Analytical data.

There is a memo dated 7/30/01 concerning the change from split vs.
splitless injections. This memo is copied and the date of 03 July 01
appears on the copy. Please clarify that this was dated in error.	Date
was corrected.  OK

	Raw data for Animal 3558, Male, Pup 1.

Data records the observation as “no observed pup necropsy finding”.
Edit documentation for the thymus finding of “discolored slight, left,
tissue saved was not present in data”. An edit trail should be
available for this change.	Data was reviewed and the edit trail is
intact.  OK

	Raw Data.

A note to the data should be written to clarify that the Maternal Body
Weight, Clinical Observations and/or Body Weight, Clinical Observations
and/or Food Fed or Food Left values can be located in either the
maternal or litter data notebooks. Both sets of notebooks need to be
reviewed to fully track the maternal data.	A note was added to the Data
Review page to clarify.  OK

211(b) Toxicology Research Group

ETOH One-Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study Report

Reviewer Checklist

  PAGE  1 	  DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy"  11/6/2007  Final


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73390-73391]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2018-0076]

Petition for Extension of Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on July 13, 2023, Canadian
National Railway Company (CN) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from
certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR part 220, Railroad Communications. The relevant Docket Number
is FRA-2018-0076.
    Specifically, CN requests continued relief from Sec.  220.305, Use
of personal electronic devices, and Sec.  220.307, Use of railroad-
supplied electronic devices, to permit its employees to use certain
fitness trackers while conducting their daily duties. The request
pertains to the Virgin Pulse Max Pedometer and/or

Virgin Pulse GoZone Pedometer. CN also requests to include in the
relief ``similar devices from other manufacturers that are solely
monitoring devices without the capability to make or receive phone
calls, send or receive texts, and are not capable of hosting
independent games or programs.'' CN states the risk of distraction is
substantially minimized based on the devices' limited functionality and
further explains that the devices are part of ``an important well-being
program'' to ``support improved health outcomes'' for employees.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by December 26, 2023 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic
form of any written communications and comments received into any of
our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to
better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-23564 Filed 10-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60275-60279]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23964]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9901-57-OAR]

Alternative Method for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits for
Mercedes-Benz Vehicles Under the Light-Duty Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In the light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas rule for model year
2012 through 2016 vehicles, EPA established a program to allow
automobile manufacturers to generate ``off-cycle'' carbon dioxide
(CO2) credits by employing technologies that achieve
CO2 reductions in the real world but are not appropriately
captured on the test procedures used by manufacturers to demonstrate
compliance with the CO2 standards. Under one of the program
options, a manufacturer may develop and submit to EPA for approval an
alternative demonstration methodology justifying eligibility for off-
cycle credits and their amount. The regulations concerning off-cycle
credits require an opportunity for public comment as part of EPA's
review of such an alternative methodology. EPA is requesting comment on
an alternative methodology submitted by Mercedes-Benz for determining
off-cycle credits for the following technologies: engine stop-start,
high efficiency exterior lighting, infrared glazing, and active seat
ventilation. The application is only for off-cycle credits for
Mercedes-Benz vehicles for the 2012 through 2016 model years.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0643, by one of the following methods:
     On-Line at http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the On- Line
Instructions for Submitting Comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013- 0643, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    On-Line Instructions for Submitting Comments: Direct your comments
to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013- 0643. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email.
    The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will automatically be captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Materials relevant to this proceeding are contained in the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, maintained in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ- OAR-2013-0643. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Headquarters
Library, EPA West Building, Room 3334, located at 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open to the
public on all federal government work days from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.;
generally, it is open Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Air and
Radiation Docket and Information

Center's Web site is http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. The electronic
mail (email) address for the Air and Radiation Docket is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the fax
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is
available through the federal government's electronic public docket and
comment system. You may access EPA dockets at http://www.regulations.gov. After opening the http://www.regulations.gov Web
site, enter EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0643 in the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' fill-in
box to view documents in the record. Although a part of the official
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
    EPA will keep the record open until October 31, 2013. All
information will be available for inspection at the EPA Air Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0643. Persons with comments containing proprietary
information must distinguish such information from other comments to
the greatest extent possible and label it as ``Confidential Business
Information'' (``CBI''). If a person making comments wants EPA to base
its decision on a submission labeled as CBI, then a non-confidential
version of the document that summarizes the key data or information
should be submitted to the public docket. To ensure that proprietary
information is not inadvertently placed in the public docket,
submissions containing such information should be sent directly to the
contact person listed below and not to the public docket. Information
covered by a claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA only to
the extent allowed, and according to the procedures set forth in 40 CFR
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the submission when
EPA receives it, EPA will make it available to the public without
further notice to the person making comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roberts French, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,
Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:
(734) 214-4869. Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the model year (MY) 2012-2016 light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas
(GHG) rule, EPA established an option for manufacturers to generate
credits by employing technologies that achieve carbon dioxide
(CO2) reductions in the real world but are not captured on
the 2-cycle test procedures used to determine compliance with the fleet
average standards (i.e., ``off-cycle'' credits). EPA adopted the off-
cycle credit option to encourage the introduction of these types of
technologies, believing that off-cycle CO2 reductions should
be considered in determining a manufacturer's fleet average, and that a
credit mechanism is an effective way to achieve this.
    The MY 2012-2016 rule provided two ways for manufacturers to
demonstrate the off-cycle emissions reduction capabilities of a
technology and generate off-cycle credits, either through 5-cycle
testing (which captures elements of real-world driving not captured by
the 2-cycle compliance tests, including high speeds, rapid
accelerations, and cold temperature operation) or an alternative
demonstration methodology developed by the manufacturer and approved by
EPA.\1\ The MY 2017-2025 light-duty GHG rule streamlined the off-cycle
credits program and provided a third pathway for credits, a pre-
determined credits list that may be used beginning in MY 2014.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 25438-25440, May 7, 2010.
    \2\ 77 FR 62832-62839, October 15, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first pathway for a manufacturer to demonstrate off-cycle
technology is to conduct 5-cycle emissions testing with and without the
technology applied to the vehicle.\3\ If the off-cycle emissions
benefit of the technology is able to be adequately captured through 5-
cycle testing, the manufacturer must conduct testing per the
regulations, and submit the data to EPA.\4\ This methodology was
proposed in detail in the rulemakings, which included an opportunity
for public comment, and therefore manufacturers' applications for
credits using the 5-cycle process do not undergo additional public
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
    \4\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second pathway allows manufacturers to demonstrate off-cycle
emissions reduction technology using an alternative methodology
developed by the manufacturer in cases where the real world benefit of
the technology cannot be adequately demonstrated using the 5-cycle test
procedures.\5\ The regulations regarding the alternative methodology,
excerpted below, specify the data and information needed to support a
manufacturer's off-cycle credit application.\6\ The alternative
methodology must be approved by EPA prior to the manufacturer
generating credits. Also, as part of the EPA review, the alternative
methodology must be made available for public comment.\7\ EPA will
consider public comments as part of its final decision to approve or
deny the credit request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).
    \6\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d) and (e).
    \7\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulations for the alternative methodology provided at 40 CFR
86.1869-12(d)(1)(i)-(iv) specify that the alternative demonstration
program must be approved in advance by the Administrator and should be
based on modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or other
approved analytical or engineering methods, and should be robust,
verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the real-world emissions
benefit of the technology with strong statistical significance.
Further, the alternative program should result in a demonstration of
baseline and controlled emissions over a wide range of driving
conditions and vehicles in order to minimize issues of data
uncertainty. Additionally, the regulations at 40 CFR 86.1869-
12(e)(1)(ii)-(iii) and (e)(2)(i)-(iv) provide specificity regarding the
data and information that must be submitted to EPA as part of an
application for credits using an alternative demonstration methodology.
    As noted above, as part of the MY 2017-2025 rule, EPA adopted a
list of pre-approved off-cycle technologies and credits that
manufacturers can use beginning in MY 2014.\8\ This third option was
included in the MY 2017-2025 rule because certain types of off-cycle
credits are amenable to quantification without further demonstration,
and EPA's specification of these credits therefore significantly
streamlines the off-cycle credits program and reduces the testing and
data burden that the program otherwise entails. Manufacturers using the
pre-approved list only need to provide EPA at the time of certification
with information demonstrating that their technology meets applicable
definitions and qualifies for credits. There are no testing or other
requirements for demonstrating emissions reductions. Manufacturers may
however use the 5-cycle or alternative methodology pathways in MY 2014
and later to demonstrate that their technology achieves greater off-
cycle emissions reductions than are provided by the pre-defined list.
Also, manufacturers would need to use the 5-cycle or alternative
methodology pathways to demonstrate eligibility for credits for
technologies

that are not on the list, as well as the extent of the credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mercedes-Benz is applying for credits for model years prior to MY
2014 and for credits in excess of the credits on the pre-approved list.
The technologies cannot be adequately demonstrated over the 5-cycle
test and therefore Mercedes-Benz has applied for credits under the
alternative methodology approach discussed above.

II. Mercedes-Benz Off-Cycle Credit Application and Alternative
Methodology

    Mercedes-Benz has applied for off-cycle credits using the
alternative demonstration methodology pathway for the following
technologies: engine stop-start, high efficiency exterior lighting,
infrared glazing, and active seat ventilation. The application covers
MY 2012-2016 vehicles. EPA has reviewed the application for
completeness and is now making the application available for public
review and comment per the regulations.\9\ The Mercedes-Benz off-cycle
credit application with confidential business information redacted has
been placed in docket EPA-HQ- OAR-2013-0643 and on EPA's Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/greenhouse/ld-ghg.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Sec.  86.1869-12(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of Mercedes' alternative methodology for each of the four
technologies is provided below. For context and comparison, in
summarizing the Mercedes-Benz alternative methodology, EPA provides
some background on how the Mercedes-Benz methodology compares to that
developed by EPA in the MY 2017-2025 light-duty GHG rulemaking for the
pre-approved list of off-cycle credits, which is contained in the Joint
Technical Support Document (TSD), Chapter 5.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Joint Technical Support Document: Final Rulemaking for
2017-2025 Light-duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, United States
Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, August 2012, EPA-420-R-12-901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Engine Stop-Start

    Mercedes-Benz is applying for engine idle stop-start credit
covering all of their MY 2012-2016 U.S. model product range (e.g.,
small/mid-size/large cars and light-duty trucks) (See Section II-III of
Mercedes-Benz Application). Mercedes-Benz is following a similar
methodology to the one EPA described in the TSD for the MY2017-2025
rule, but with unique inputs for idle time and stop-start system
effectiveness which includes parameters related to Mercedes' unique
control strategy for its stop-start system.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ MY2017-2025 Technical Support Document, Chapter 5, Section
<IP_ADDRESS>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basic methodology entails the following steps: estimate or
measure the total idle fraction as a percentage of all vehicle
operation in the real-world; estimate or measure the percentage of idle
fraction that the stop-start system is enabled out of all the available
idle time (i.e., eligible stop-start percentage or stop-start system
effectiveness); determine the benefit of the stop-start system in grams
per mile based on A-B testing (i.e., technology on and off); and
multiply the eligible real world stop-start time (relative to the 2-
cycle eligible time) by the stop-start system benefit to estimate the
engine idle stop-start credit.
    In lieu of the EPA default idle time derived from the MOVES model,
Mercedes-Benz is proposing to apply a unique idle time specific to its
vehicles. To estimate the total idle time as a percentage of all
vehicle operation, Mercedes-Benz conducted a field study in calendar
years 2010-2011 including 29 instrumented customer vehicles, randomly
selected from the Mercedes-Benz customer base. The field study was
performed for a period of 13 months in eight states: California, New
York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Illinois, Virginia, and Arizona.
These eight states represented about 65% of the Mercedes-Benz sales
volume. The remaining 35% of the Mercedes-Benz sales fleet was
distributed in the other 42 states not included in the idle fraction
study. During the course of the study, the vehicles accumulated 311,118
miles. The 29 vehicle sample broadly represents the Mercedes-Benz
models equipped with stop-start technology sold in the United States.
Based on this study, Mercedes-Benz estimated that its vehicles have a
23.83% total idle fraction as a percentage of all vehicle operation.
    To provide further support for its idle fraction estimate,
Mercedes-Benz acquired an independent estimate of idle fraction for its
vehicles from Progressive Insurance. Progressive Insurance has about
1.4 million vehicles in its ``Snapshot'' Program covering 44 states
(excluding California, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Arkansas,
and Hawaii), over a six month period.\12\ In the Progressive data set,
there are 17,484 Mercedes-Benz vehicles which are represented in
proportion to current industry sales shares. Based on the Progressive
data set, the Mercedes-Benz vehicles are estimated to have an idle
fraction of 23.9%. This is almost exactly the same as the 23.83% idle
fraction found in the Mercedes-Benz study discussed above and used by
Mercedes-Benz in their analysis. Further, since the Progressive
Insurance data covers 37 out of the other 42 states not included in the
Mercedes-Benz idle fraction study, this data implies that the other 35%
of the sales volume not represented by the Mercedes-Benz data has
consistent idle fractions. Mercedes indicated that none of the other 42
states, except for Pennsylvania, have equivalent sales volumes to the
states used in the idle fraction study. As such, Mercedes-Benz
concludes that the idle fraction for the other 35% of the sales volume,
if different, would not have significantly altered the idle fraction
estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Of these states, only California is a major market for
Mercedes-Benz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the percentage of idle fraction during which the stop-
start system is enabled, Mercedes-Benz used EPA's methodology in
Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document (TSD) for the MY2017-2025
rule, with inputs specific to Mercedes-Benz vehicles and control
strategies.
    The following background is provided to give some additional
context on how EPA derived off-cycle credits for stop-start systems for
the pre-approved menu in the MY 2017-2025 rulemaking. EPA constrained
stop-start system effectiveness based on three operating temperature
ranges: cold temperatures below 40 degrees Fahrenheit, mid-temperatures
between 40 and 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and hot temperatures above 80
degrees. For the cold temperature range, EPA assumed that passenger
demand for heat would reduce stop-start effectiveness unless the
vehicle possesses an electric heater circulation pump, or equivalent
system, that supplies sufficient heat during engine off operation. For
the hot temperature range, EPA assumed that passenger demand for air
conditioning (A/C) would render the stop-start system inoperable,
unless the manufacturer has some supplemental system to support cabin
cooling. For all the temperature ranges, EPA assumed that the stop-
start system always defaults on when the vehicle is keyed on. EPA
assumed the overall system effectiveness would be reduced to 87.75% due
to these temperature effects.
    Mercedes Benz's stop-start system has several design features that
differ from those used by EPA for the pre-approved menu analysis. As
described in Section III of the Mercedes-Benz application, Mercedes-
Benz took these factors into account in analyzing its system
performance. First, the Mercedes-Benz stop-start system includes an
electric

heater circulation pump that maintains cabin heating in cold
temperatures, and thus enables stop-start capability when heat is
demanded. Second, the Mercedes-Benz system has a supplemental 12 volt
battery system that supplies power for all the electrical components
and accessories. This allows the main battery to support restarting and
also enables stop-start capability even when A/C is demanded. Mercedes-
Benz also made an adjustment to account for OBD and stop-start
interactions, which limits the availability of stop-start during the
first 170 seconds of vehicle operation. These adjustments resulted in
an estimated fraction of effectiveness (i.e., when the system is
active) of about 91.32%, compared to EPA's generic estimate of 87.75%.
    In addition, the Mercedes-Benz system includes an ``EcoButton''
that allows customers to disable the stop-start system. An estimate of
the frequency of use of the EcoButton to disable the stop-start system
is included in the Mercedes-Benz calculations. Finally, the Mercedes-
Benz stop-start system has a maximum engine off duration of three
minutes; therefore, the stop-start system would not be active after an
idle period exceeds three minutes. Based on these features, Mercedes-
Benz reduced its eligible idle time of 23.83% to a total eligible idle
time of 21.22% using the 91.32% system effectiveness discussed above,
and an additional discount of 2.5% for EcoButton usage and idles
exceeding the Mercedes-Benz system's 3 minute engine off duration.
    To determine the CO2 emissions benefit of the stop-start
system, Mercedes-Benz performed testing of Mercedes-Benz vehicles
equipped with stop-start in different vehicle categories with the stop-
start system on and off. Based on this testing, Mercedes-Benz measured
a benefit of: 9.8 g/mi CO2 for small size cars, 8.1 g/mi
CO2 for mid-size cars, 16.9 g/mi CO2 for large
size cars, and 15.2 g/mi CO2 for light-duty trucks (e.g.,
SUVs). These g/mile GHG improvement values reflect the operational
effectiveness of the Mercedes-Benz system during the 2-cycle testing.
The effectiveness (i.e., the time the engine is off compared to the
total idle time in the cycle) of the stop-start system over the 2-cycle
test ranged from 67.3% to 80.4%.
    Based on the eligible stop-start idle fraction of 21.22%, compared
with 10% idle fraction over the 2-cycle tests, and the emissions
benefits measured above, Mercedes-Benz calculated an engine stop-start
credit of 11.0 g/mi CO2 for small size cars; 9.1 g/mi
CO2 for mid-size cars; 19.0 g/mi CO2 for large
size cars; and 17.1 g/mi CO2 for light-duty trucks (for
example, for small cars, these credits were derived as: (9.8 g/mi
CO2 x 0.2122/0.10) - 9.8 g/mi CO2 = 11.0 g/mi
CO2).
High Efficiency Exterior Lighting
    Mercedes-Benz is applying for off-cycle credits for high efficiency
exterior lighting for their MY 2012-2016 U.S. model product range with
the following lighting elements: low beam head lights, high beam head
lights, parking/position, front turn signal, front side marker, tail
lights, rear turn signal, and license plate (See Section IV of the
Mercedes-Benz application). This list of lighting elements is
consistent with that specified by EPA for the pre-approved list in the
MY 2017-2025 rule.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the high efficiency exterior lighting credits,
Mercedes-Benz used the EPA methodology set forth in the TSD for the
MY2017-2025 rule.\14\ Specifically, Mercedes-Benz used the MY 2017-2025
rule baseline wattage values for each lighting element listed above and
the time of day (e.g., day time, night time) usage rates from a study
performed by Schoettle et al. \15\ and inserted the wattage values from
the Mercedes-Benz high efficiency exterior lighting to determine the
wattage savings for each lighting element. In most cases, the Mercedes-
Benz wattage savings for each lighting element exceeded the wattage
savings projected in the MY 2017-2025 rule (exceptions: parking/
position lights at 70% savings versus 78% in the MY 2017-2025 rule;
license plate light at 86% versus 90% in the MY 2017-2025 rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ MY2017-2025 Technical Support Document, Chapter 5, Section
5.2.3.
    \15\ Schoettle, B., et al., ``LEDS and Power Consumption of
Exterior Automotive Lighting: Implications for Gasoline and Electric
Vehicles,'' University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute, October, 2008. For the MY2017-2025 Rule, the high
efficiency exterior lighting wattage for one lighting element, low
beam head lights, was revised based on manufacturer comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the final credit amounts, Mercedes-Benz multiplied the wattage
savings times the usage rates and a constant of 0.032 g/mi
CO2/watt (based on data showing a 100 watt savings equates
to 3.2 g/mi CO2 savings) for a credit of 1.1 g/mi
CO2 total for all the high-efficiency exterior lighting
elements used over the range of Mercedes-Benz models. In comparison,
the default credit value for high efficiency exterior lighting in the
MY2017-2025 rule is 1.0 g/mi CO2.
Infrared Glazing
    Mercedes-Benz is applying for off-cycle credits for infrared
glazing for the MY 2012-2013 S-Class, ML-Class and GL-Class vehicles
that utilize infrared glazing technology (See Section IV of Mercedes-
Benz's application). The infrared glazing technology absorbs and/or
reflects a percentage of the infrared solar energy emitted from the sun
and reduces the amount of solar heat load transmitted into the cabin;
this is termed ``total solar transmittance'' or ``Tts.'' The Tts is
usually expressed as a percentage and defined as the amount of solar
energy that passes through the glazing, including energy absorbed and
subsequently re-radiated to the interior, to the amount of solar energy
imparted on the surface of glazing.\16\ The higher this number, the
more solar energy is allowed to penetrate into the passenger cabin.
Therefore, a lower Tts number is better since less solar energy will
penetrate the passenger cabin and, consequently, the interior cabin
temperature is reduced. Infrared glazing technologies improve passenger
comfort, reducing the need for air conditioning (A/C) usage, which in
turn, reduces vehicle fuel consumption. EPA's analysis relied on a
study performed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
demonstrating that a one degree centigrade reduction in cabin air
temperature results in a 2.2% reduction in CO2 emissions
resulting from a reduction in passenger compartment temperature and
reduced A/C usage.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Title 17 California Code of Regulations Sec.  95600-95605:
``Cool Car Standards and Test Procedures--2012 and Subsequent Model-
Year Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles.'';
Air Resources Board; May 8, 2009 (see:http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/coolcars09/coolcarsappa.pdf).
    \17\ Rugh, J., Farrington, R. ``Vehicle Ancillary Load Reduction
Project Close-Out Report,'' National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Technical Report NREL/TP-540-42454, January, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the infrared glazing credits, Mercedes-Benz used the
methods set forth in Chapter 5 of the TSD for the MY 2017-2025
rule.\18\ This method utilizes the International Organization for
Standardization's (ISO) standard 13837 for measuring the solar
transmittance of infrared glazing \19\ and a formula for estimating the
effect of the solar performance of glazing technologies developed by
EPA and California Air Resources Board with

input from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the
Enhanced Performance Glass Automotive Association (EPGAA).
Specifically, the contribution of each glass/glazing location to the
overall interior temperature reduction is estimated using its measured
Tts, relative to a baseline level, and the area of the glass/glazing
location relative to the overall glass area. \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ MY2017-2025 Technical Support Document, Chapter 5, Section
5.2.10.
    \19\ International Organization for Standardization's (ISO)
13837: ``Road vehicles--Safety glazing materials--Method for the
determination of solar transmittance,'' April 15, 2008.
    \20\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b)(1)(viii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The infrared glazing used by Mercedes-Benz has the same Tts
performance levels as the baseline Tts levels specified in the MY2017-
2025 rule: 62% for all glazing locations, except for rooflites and rear
side glazings of crossovers, SUVs, and minivans, which have a baseline
Tts of 40%. Based on the Tts levels for Mercedes Benz's infrared
glazing and the formula described above, Mercedes-Benz calculated a
credit of 0.8 to 1.7 g/mi CO2 for the infrared glazing used
over the range of Mercedes-Benz models. In comparison, the default
credit values for infrared glazing in the MY2017-2025 rule are scalable
depending on such factors as the amount of glass in the vehicle and the
performance of the glazing, up to a maximum of 2.9 g/mi CO2
for cars and 3.9 g/mi CO2 for trucks.
Active Seat Ventilation
    Mercedes-Benz is applying for off-cycle credits for applicable
vehicles that have active seat ventilation on both the front row'
driver and passenger seats (See Section IV of Mercedes-Benz's
application).\21\ The Mercedes-Benz active seat ventilation technology
has the capability to both pull air away from and push air to the
seating surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b)(4)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate the active seat ventilation credits, Mercedes-Benz
used the methods set forth in Chapter 5 of the MY 2017-2025 TSD.\22\
Based on the NREL study mentioned above, a 7.5% reduction in air
conditioning (A/C) related emissions could be achieved by lowering the
surface temperature of the vehicle seats.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ MY2017-2025 Technical Support Document, Chapter 5, Section
5.2.11.
    \23\ Ibid 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the seat location criteria, capability, and the
methodology described above, Mercedes-Benz estimated a credit of 1.0 g/
mi CO2 for cars and 1.3 g/mi CO2 for trucks for
the active seat ventilation technology used over the range of Mercedes-
Benz models. These values are identical to the default values in the
pre-approved off-cycle credit list in the MY 2017-2025 rule. Therefore,
Mercedes-Benz concludes that its active seat ventilation system
achieves equivalent performance to that assumed in the MY 2017-2025
rule. Mercedes-Benz could use the pre-approved list to claim these
credits beginning in MY 2014, but since they are seeking credits to
begin in MY 2012, and because these technologies are not measurable
through the 5-cycle testing pathway, Mercedes-Benz is applying for
these credits through this alternative technology pathway.

III. EPA Decision Process

    EPA is providing a 30-day comment period on this application for an
alternative methodology for off-cycle credits, as specified by the
regulations. The manufacturer may submit a written rebuttal of comments
for EPA's consideration, or may revise its application in response to
comments; EPA would review a revised application as if it were a new
application.\24\ After reviewing any public comments and any rebuttal
of comments submitted by Mercedes-Benz, EPA will make a final decision
regarding the credit request. EPA will make its decision available to
the public by placing a decision document in the docket as specified in
the MY 2017-2025 rule.\25\ and on EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld-hwy/greenhouse/ld-ghg.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(e)(3)(iii).
    \25\ 40 CFR 86.1869-12(e)(4)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An EPA decision to approve Mercedes Benz's off-cycle credit request
would only apply to the vehicles specified in the Mercedes-Benz
application for MYs 2012-2016. Such decision would not apply to other
Mercedes-Benz vehicles or vehicles from other manufacturers. While the
broad methodology used by Mercedes-Benz could potentially be used for
other vehicles and by other manufacturers, the vehicle specific data
needed to demonstrate the off-cycle emissions reductions would likely
be different. In such cases, a new application would be required,
including an opportunity for public comment.

    Dated: September 20, 2013.
Byron Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2013-23964 Filed 9-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 21)]
[Notices]
[Page 5312-5313]
[DOCID:fr02fe10-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP09-460-000]

ETC Tiger Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed ETC Tiger Pipeline Project

January 26, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the ETC
Tiger Pipeline Project (Project) proposed by ETC Tiger Pipeline
Company, LLC (ETC Tiger) in the above referenced docket. ETC Tiger
requests authorization to construct, own, operate, and maintain the
proposed Project, which consists of an interstate natural gas pipeline
and associated ancillary facilities. The proposed Project would
transport about 2.0 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from east
Texas and northwest Louisiana to the Midwest, Northeastern, and
Southeastern markets.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the proposed ETC Tiger Pipeline 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.
    This EA was prepared in cooperation with U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
    The proposed ETC Tiger Pipeline Project includes the following
proposed facilities:
     About 175.0 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline
in Panola County, Texas, and Caddo, DeSoto, Red River, Bienville,
Jackson, Ouachita, Richland, and Franklin Parishes, Louisiana;
     About 0.4 mile of 42-inch-diameter interconnecting station
pipeline in Richland Parish, Louisiana;

     Four compressor stations: the Carthage, Cannisnia,
Bienville, and Chatham Compressor Stations, located in Panola County,
Texas; Red River Parish, Louisiana; Bienville Parish, Louisiana; and
Jackson Parish, Louisiana, respectively;
     One bidirectional meter and regulator station at a
receipt/delivery point with an intrastate pipeline, the Houston Pipe
Line Meter/Regulator (M/R) Station in Panola County, Texas;
     Eight new meter and regulator stations at receipt points
with four pipeline systems, including:

--Two Chesapeake Energy Marketing, Inc. (Chesapeake) M/R Stations in
DeSoto Parish, Louisiana;
--EnCana Marketing (USA) (EnCana) M/R Station in DeSoto Parish,
Louisiana;
--Questar Exploration and Production Company (Questar) M/R Station in
Red River Parish, Louisiana;
--EnCana M/R Station in Red River Parish, Louisiana;
--Tristate North Louisiana Midstream, LLC (Tristate) M/R Station in Red
River Parish, Louisiana;
--Questar M/R Station in Bienville Parish, Louisiana; and
--EnCana M/R Station in Bienville Parish, Louisiana;

     Interconnects with seven existing interstate pipelines at
delivery points including:

--Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. (TETCO) M/R Station in Bienville
Parish, Louisiana;
--Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee Gas) M/R Station in Jackson
Parish, Louisiana;
--Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) M/R Station in Ouachita
Parish, Louisiana;
--Trunkline Gas Company, LLC (Trunkline) M/R Station in Richland
Parish, Louisiana;
--ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) M/R Station in Richland Parish, Louisiana;
--Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (CGT) M/R Station in Richland
Parish, Louisiana; and
--Southeast Supply Header, LLC (SESH) M/R Station in Richland Parish,
Louisiana;

     Fifteen mainline valves; and
     Three pig launcher/receiver facilities associated with the
Carthage and Bienville Compressor Stations, to be located within the
permanent right-of-way at the terminus of the pipeline.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the
EA are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street,
NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to federal, state, and local
agencies; interested groups and individuals; newspapers and libraries
in the Project area; and parties to this proceeding.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the 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 your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive
your comments in Washington, DC on or before February 26, 2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the
Project docket number (CP09-460-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling involves
preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on
paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard drive. You will
attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users must first
create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.'' You will
be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on a
particular project is considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file your comments on paper at the following address:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on
the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP09-460). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now 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 http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2108 Filed 2-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 63)]
[Notices]
[Page 15877-15878]
[DOCID:fr03ap07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-90-000]

Tres Palacios Gas Storage LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Tres Palacios Gas Storage
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

March 28, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Tres Palacios Gas Storage
Project involving construction and operation of a new salt dome cavern
gas storage project and pipelines by Tres Palacios Gas Storage LLC
(Tres Palacios) in Matagorda and Wharton Counties, Texas.\1\ This EA
will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to
determine whether the project is in the public convenience and
necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tres Palacios' application was filed with the Commission
under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' was attached to the
project notice (Tres Palacios) provided to landowners. This fact sheet
addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of
eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.
It is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov
).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Tres Palacios is proposing to provide a total of about 36.04
billion cubic feet (Bcf) of storage capacity, supported by about 17.95
Bcf of cushion gas capacity, and be capable of injecting gas at maximum
rate of 1.0 Bcf per day and withdrawing and delivering gas at a maximum
rate of 2.5 Bcf per day. Tres Palacios seeks authority to undertake the
following construction-related activities in Texas:
     Convert three existing solution-mined caverns in Matagorda
County that were previously used for brine production;
     Drill a second well into each of the three solution-mined
caverns in Matagorda County to support gas injections and withdrawals;
     Construct a gas handling facility in Matagorda County
consisting of ten 4,800-horsepower natural gas-engine driven
compressors;
     Construct a pipeline header system consisting of: North
Pipeline Corridor--a 30.3-mile-long segment of dual 24-inch-diameter
pipeline in Matagorda and Wharton Counties and a second 0.7 mile-long
segment of single 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Wharton County; and
South Pipeline Corridor--a 6.4-mile-long segment of dual 24-inch-
diameter pipeline and a second 4.4-mile-long segment of single 24-inch-
diameter pipeline in Matagorda County;
     Construct eight meter and regulator stations and ten
interconnect facilities in Matagorda and Wharton Counties; and
     Construct eight main line block valves in Matagorda and
Wharton Counties.
    Tres Palacios would connect its pipeline header system with Valero
Natural Gas Pipe Line Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation, Natural Gas Pipeline
Company of America, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, Crosstex Gulf
Coast Transmission Company, LLC, Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, L.P.,
Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC, Channel Pipeline Company, and
Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.
    The location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
last page of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 498.2
acres of land. Following construction, about 174.7 acres would be
maintained as new aboveground facility sites and permanent rights-of-
way. The remaining 323.5 acres of land would be restored and allowed to
revert to its former use.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the
EA. All comments received are considered during the preparation of the
EA. State and local government representatives are encouraged to notify
their constituents of this proposed action and encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.
    In the EA we \3\ will discuss impacts that could occur as a result
of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Geology and soils.
     Land use.
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands.
     Cultural resources.
     Vegetation and wildlife.
     Air quality and noise.
     Endangered and threatened species.
     Hazardous waste.
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the proposed project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the

instructions in the public participation section below.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal, and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that
your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Philis
Posey, Acting Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 3.
     Reference Docket No. CP07-90-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before April 30, 2007.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any
comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the

User's Guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a
free account which can be created on-line.
    We may mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in receiving
it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not
return the Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an official party to the proceeding, or ``intervenor''. To
become an intervenor you must file a motion to intervene according to
Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR
385.214). Intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision. Motions to Intervene should be electronically
submitted using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov.

Persons without Internet access should send an original and 14 copies
of their motion to the Secretary of the Commission at the address
indicated previously. Persons filing Motions to Intervene on or before
the comment deadline indicated above must send a copy of the motion to
the Applicant. All filings, including late interventions, submitted
after the comment deadline must be served on the Applicant and all
other intervenors identified on the Commission's service list for this
proceeding. Persons on the service list with e-mail addresses may be
served electronically; others must be served a hard copy of the filing.
    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your environmental comments considered.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for project purposes, or who own homes within distances defined in the
Commission's regulations of certain above-ground facilities. By this
notice we are also asking governmental agencies, especially those in
Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies
for the preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now 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 http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx
 along with other related information.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6101 Filed 4-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P