[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 61 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18987-18990]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7573]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0924; FRL-9653-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Nonattainment New Source Review; Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These
revisions pertaining to Pennsylvania's nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR) program incorporate preconstruction permitting regulations for
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) into the Pennsylvania SIP.
EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0924 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0924, Kathleen Cox, Associate Director,
Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0924. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at 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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically 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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerallyn Duke,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On September 23, 2011, the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) submitted a
formal revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP).

I. Background

    The SIP revision consists of amendments to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 121,
``General Provisions;'' and Chapter 127, ``Construction, Modification,
Reactivation and Operation of Sources.'' This SIP revision submitted by
Pennsylvania will satisfy requirements that are set forth in the
federal rule, ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program
for Particulate Matter less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)''
(NSR PM2.5 Rule), which was promulgated on May 16, 2008 (73
FR 28321).

A. Fine Particulate Matter and the NAAQS

    Fine particles in the atmosphere are made up of a complex mixture
of components. Common constituents include sulfate (SO4);
nitrate (NO3); ammonium; elemental carbon; a great variety
of organic compounds; and inorganic material (including metals, dust,
sea salt, and other trace elements) generally referred to as
``crustal'' material, although it may contain material from other
sources. Airborne particulate matter (PM) with a nominal aerodynamic
diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (a micrometer is one-millionth of a
meter, and 2.5 micrometers is less than one-seventh the average width
of a human hair) are considered to be ``fine particles'' and are also
known as PM2.5. ``Primary'' particles are emitted directly
into the air as a solid or liquid particle (e.g., elemental carbon from
diesel engines or fire activities, or condensable organic particles
from gasoline engines). ``Secondary'' particles (e.g., sulfate and
nitrate) form in the atmosphere as a result of various chemical
reactions.
    The health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5
include potential aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease
(i.e., lung disease, decreased lung function asthma attacks and certain
cardiovascular issues). Epidemiological studies have indicated a
correlation between elevated PM2.5 levels and premature
mortality. Groups considered especially sensitive to PM2.5
exposure include older adults, children, and individuals with heart and
lung diseases. For more details regarding health effects and
PM2.5 see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/ (see heading ``Health and Welfare'').
    On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for PM to add new standards
for fine particles, using PM2.5 as the indicator.
Previously, EPA used PM10 (inhalable particles smaller than
or equal to 10 micrometers in diameter) as the indicator for the PM
NAAQS. EPA established health-based (primary) annual and 24-hour
standards for PM2.5, setting an annual standard at a level
of 15 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) and a 24-hour standard at
a level of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (62 FR 38652). At the time the 1997 primary
standards were established, EPA also established welfare-based
(secondary) standards identical to the primary standards. The secondary
standards are designed to protect against major environmental effects
of PM2.5, such as visibility impairment, soiling, and
materials damage. On October 17, 2006, EPA revised the primary and
secondary NAAQS for PM2.5. In that rulemaking, EPA reduced
the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained
the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\ (71 FR
61236).

B. Implementation of NSR Requirements for PM2.5--the NSR PM2.5 Rule

    After EPA promulgated the NAAQS for PM2.5 on October 23,
1997, the Agency issued a guidance document written by John Seitz
entitled ``Interim Implementation of New Source Review Requirements for
PM2.5'' (Seitz memo). The Seitz memo was designed to help
states implement NSR requirements pertaining to the new
PM2.5 NAAQS in light of technical difficulties posed by
PM2.5 at that time. Specifically, the Seitz memo states:
``PM10 may properly be used as a surrogate for
PM2.5 in meeting NSR requirements until these difficulties
are resolved.''
    EPA also issued a guidance document entitled ``Implementation of
New Source Review Requirements in PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas'' (the ``2005 PM2.5 Nonattainment NSR Guidance''), on
April 5, 2005, the date that EPA's PM2.5 nonattainment area
designations became effective for the 1997 NAAQS. This memorandum
provided guidance on the implementation of the nonattainment

major NSR provisions in PM2.5 nonattainment areas in the
interim period between the effective date of the PM2.5
nonattainment area designations (April 5, 2005) and EPA's promulgation
of final PM2.5 nonattainment NSR regulations. Besides
reaffirming the continuation of the PM10 Surrogate Policy
for PM2.5 attainment areas set forth in the Seitz memo, the
2005 PM2.5 nonattainment NSR Guidance recommended that until
EPA promulgated the PM2.5 major NSR regulations, ``States
should use a PM10 nonattainment major NSR program as a
surrogate to address the requirements of nonattainment major NSR for
the PM2.5 NAAQS.''
    On May 16, 2008, EPA finalized a rule (the NSR PM2.5
Rule) to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, including changes
to the NSR program (73 FR 28321). The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule
revised the NSR program requirements to establish the framework for
implementing preconstruction permit review for the PM2.5
NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment areas. The 2008 NSR
PM2.5 Rule required that major stationary sources seeking
permits must directly satisfy the PM2.5 requirements, as of
the effective date of the rule, rather than relying on PM10
as a surrogate, with two exceptions. The first exception was a
``grandfathering'' provision in the Federal PSD program at 40 CFR
52.21(i)(1)(xi). This grandfathering provision applied to sources that
had applied for, but had not yet received, a final and effective PSD
permit before the July 15, 2008, effective date of the May 2008 final
rule. The second exception was that states with SIP-approved PSD
programs could continue to implement the Seitz Memo's PM10
Surrogate Policy for up to three years (until May 2011) or until the
individual revised state PSD programs for PM2.5 are approved
by EPA, whichever came first. For additional information on the NSR
PM2.5 Rule, see (73 FR 28321). On February 11, 2010, EPA
proposed to repeal the grandfathering provision for PM2.5
contained in the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi) and to
end early the PM10 Surrogate Policy applicable in states
that have a SIP approved PSD program (75 FR 6827). In support of this
proposal, EPA explained that the PM2.5 implementation issues
that led to the adoption of the PM10 Surrogate Policy in
1997 have been largely resolved to a degree sufficient for sources and
permitting authorities to conduct meaningful permit-related
PM2.5 analyses. The repeal of the grandfathering rule was
finalized on May 18, 2011 (76 FR 28646).
    The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule also established the following
NSR requirements to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) Require
NSR permits to address directly emitted PM2.5 and precursor
pollutants; (2) establish significant emission rates for direct
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants (including sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and oxides of nitrogen NOX); (3) establish
PM2.5 emission offsets; and (4) require states to account
for gases that condense to form particles (condensables) in
PM2.5 emission limits.
    Additionally, the 2008 final rule authorized states to adopt
provisions in their nonattainment NSR rules that would allow major
stationary sources and major modifications locating in areas designated
nonattainment for PM2.5 to offset emissions increases of
direct PM2.5 emissions or PM2.5 precursors with
reductions of either direct PM2.5 emissions or
PM2.5 precursors in accordance with offset ratios contained
in the approved SIP for the applicable nonattainment area. The
inclusion, in whole or in part, of the interpollutant offset provisions
for PM2.5 is discretionary on the part of the states. In the
preamble to the 2008 final rule, EPA included preferred or presumptive
offset ratios, applicable to specific PM2.5 precursors that
states may adopt in conjunction with the new interpollutant offset
provisions for PM2.5, and for which the state could rely on
the EPA's technical work to demonstrate the adequacy of the ratios for
use in any PM2.5 non attainment area. Alternatively, the
preamble indicated that states may adopt their own ratios, subject to
the EPA's approval, that would have to be substantiated by modeling or
other technical demonstrations of the net air quality benefit for
ambient PM2.5 concentrations. The preferred ratios were
subsequently the subject of a petition for reconsideration, which the
Administrator granted. EPA continues to support the basic policy that
sources may offset increases in emissions of direct PM2.5 or
of any PM2.5 precursor in a PM2.5 nonattainment
area with actual emissions reductions in direct PM2.5 or
PM2.5 precursors in accordance with offset ratios as
approved in the SIP for the applicable nonattainment area. However, we
no longer consider the preferred ratios set forth in the preamble to
the 2008 final rule for PM2.5 NSR implementation to be
presumptively approvable. Instead, any ratio involving PM2.5
precursors adopted by the state for use in the interpollutant offset
program for PM2.5 nonattainment areas must be accompanied by
a technical demonstration that shows the net air quality benefits of
such ratio for the PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it will
be applied.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision submitted by Pennsylvania consists of amendments
to the general provisions of 25 Pa. Code Chapters 121 and major
nonattainment NSR permitting regulations of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127.
The revision fulfills the federal program requirements established by
the EPA rulemaking actions discussed above for nonattainment areas. The
amendments establish the major source threshold, significant emission
rate and offset ratios for PM2.5, establish nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) as precursors to
PM2.5, and establish interpollutant trading for offsets and
NSR applicability to PM2.5 precursor pollutants, pursuant to
the May 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. Pennsylvania's proposed SIP
revision does not include the ``grandfathering'' and presumptively
approvable interpollutant trading ratio provisions that have
subsequently been repealed/reconsidered. Clarifying amendments,
described below, for Chapter 127 are also made. Finally, minor
editorial changes are included in the amendments.
    Section 127.203a(a)(2) is amended to clarify that aggregation of de
minimis emissions for PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors
is not required. Section 127.206(o) is amended to clarify that, except
as provided in Section 127.210 (which addresses offset ratios), an
emission reduction credit (ERC) created for a regulated criteria
pollutant shall only be used for offsetting or netting an emission
increase involving the same criteria pollutant unless approved by
PADEP. Section 127.203(b)(1)(i) is amended to clarify that the owner or
operator must use the existing provisions in Section 127.203(b)(2) or
(3) for a determination of control technology requirements when the net
emission increase is equal to or exceeds the applicable emissions rate
that is significant.
    The amendments add a definition of ``PM2.5.'' The
amendments revise the definitions of existing terms ``regulated NSR
pollutant'' and ``significant'' to include the requirements for
PM2.5 to support the amendments to Chapter 127.
Specifically, the existing term ``significant'' is revised to establish
a threshold for PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors at
major modifications at existing sources and the existing term
``regulated NSR pollutant'' is revised to include PM2.5 and
to identify precursors for PM2.5. The amendments delete the
term

``maximum allowable emissions'' since the term is no longer used to
support existing regulations in Pennsylvania and the term is not used
in the federal rules, set forth in 40 CFR 51.165, for nonattainment New
Source Review SIPs.
    The amendments submitted by Pennsylvania for approval into the SIP
were adopted by Pennsylvania on May 18, 2011 and became effective on
September 3, 2011. They include revisions to certain definitions at 25
Pa. Code 121.1, as well as to Chapter 127, Subchapter E (nonattainment
NSR). The following regulations under Chapter 127 are revised: Section
127.201 (General requirements), Section 127.201a (Measurements,
abbreviations and acronyms), Section 127.202 (Effective date), Section
127.203 (Facilities subject to special permit requirements), Section
127.203a (Applicability determination), Section 127.204 (Emissions
subject to this subchapter), Section 127.206 (ERC general
requirements), and Section 127.210 (Offset ratios).

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of the revisions submitted by Pennsylvania for
approval into the SIP finds them consistent with their federal
counterparts. EPA is proposing to approve the Pennsylvania SIP revision
to incorporate federal preconstruction permitting requirements for
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors in nonattainment areas
along with clarifying amendments, which was submitted on September 23,
2011. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule pertaining to NSR requirements for
PM2.5 does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 19, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-7573 Filed 3-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 490-491]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 77

[Docket No: FAA 2010-1326]

Marking Meteorological Evaluation Towers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed revision to Advisory Circular; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering revising its current Advisory Circular
on Obstruction Marking and Lighting to include guidance for
Meteorological Evaluation Towers (METs). These towers are erected in
remote and rural areas, often are less than 200 feet above ground level
(AGL), and fall outside of FAA regulations governing tall structures
and their impact on navigable airspace. The proposed marking guidance
would enhance the conspicuity of the towers and address the safety
related concerns of low level agricultural operations. The FAA seeks
comment on the proposed guidance.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA 2010-
1326 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send Comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheri Edgett-Barron, Obstruction
Evaluation Services, Air Traffic Organization, AJV-15, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

14 CFR Part 77

    Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), section 40103(a)(1),
provides that the ``United States Government has exclusive sovereignty
of airspace of the United States.'' Paragraph (b) of this section
directs the FAA to ``develop plans and policy for the use of the
navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of the airspace.''
    In recognition of the threat tall structures can pose to aviation
safety, 49 U.S.C. 44718 directed the FAA to promulgate regulations
requiring notice of proposed structures or alterations of existing
structures when the notice will promote safety in air commerce and the
efficient use and preservation of the navigable airspace and of airport
traffic capacity at public-use airports. (14 CFR part 77.) The agency
was further directed to study such structures and determine the extent
of any adverse impacts on the safe and efficient use of the airspace,
facilities or equipment.

    Consistent with the above statutory and regulatory framework, the
FAA has adopted policy to establish the standards for which the FAA
identifies ``obstructions'' and ``hazards'' in the navigable airspace
in furtherance of its responsibilities to manage the navigable airspace
safely and efficiently. See 14 CFR part 77, and FAA Order 7400.2,
Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters. The FAA issues a
determination advising whether the structure would be a hazard to air
navigation. The FAA may condition its determination of no hazard with
the structure appropriately being marked and lighted, as specified in
the determination. FAA criteria for marking and lighting of tall
structures are found in Advisory Circular No. 70/7460-1, Obstruction
Marking and Lighting.
    Unless within the vicinity of an airport,\1\ proponents of new
structures or alterations of existing structures must file notice with
the FAA for ``any construction or alteration of more than 200 feet in
height above the ground level at its site.'' 14 CFR 77.13(a)(1).
Consequently, as the FAA does not study these structures there is no
FAA determination that would specify the marking of these structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 14 CFR 77.13(a), paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) are not
relevant to this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The emphasis to discover sources of renewable energy in the United
States has prompted individuals and companies to explore all means of
energy generation. Wind energy, converted into electrical energy by
wind turbines, is widely pursued as a viable alternative. In order to
determine if a site meets requirements to construct a wind turbine or
wind farm, companies erect METs. These towers are used to gather wind
data necessary for site evaluation and development of wind energy
projects. The data generally is gathered over a year to ascertain if
the targeted area represents a potential location for the installation
of wind turbines.
    Requirements to file notice under part 77 generally do not apply to
structures at heights lower than 200 feet AGL unless close to an
airport environment. Therefore, the FAA does not have a database of MET
locations, nor does it conduct an aeronautical study to determine
whether the particular structure would be hazardous to aviation. These
towers are often installed in remote or rural areas, just under 200
feet above ground level (AGL), usually at 198 feet or less. These
structures are portable, erected in a matter of hours, installed with
guyed wires and constructed from a galvanized material often making
them difficult to see in certain atmospheric conditions.
    While the METs described above are not subject to the provisions of
part 77 and therefore, the FAA does not conduct aeronautical studies to
determine whether these structures are obstructions and adversely
impact air navigation, the FAA does acknowledge that these towers under
certain conditions may be difficult to see by low-level agricultural
flights operating under visual flight rules. The color, portability of
these towers, their placement in rural and remote areas, and their
ability to be erected quickly are factors that pilots should be aware
of when conducting operations in these areas.
    The FAA has received complaints and inquiries from agricultural
operations in remote or rural areas regarding the safety impacts of
these towers on low-level agricultural operations. In addition,
representatives from the National Agricultural Aviation Association
(NAAA) met with the FAA on November 16, 2010 to discuss safety specific
concerns of the aerial application industry. The NAAA suggested safety
guidelines and marking and lighting criteria in order to reduce the
risks for aerial applications. A copy of the material provided by NAAA
has been placed in the docket.

Proposed Guidance

    The FAA is considering revising AC No. 70/7460-1, Obstruction
Marking and Lighting, to include guidance for the voluntary marking of
METs that are less than 200 feet AGL. The FAA recognizes the need to
enhance the conspicuity of these METs, particularly for low-level
agricultural operations and seeks public comment on the guidance
provided below.
    The FAA recommends that the towers be painted in accordance to the
marking criteria contained in Chapter 3, paragraphs 30-33 of AC No. 70/
7460-1. In particular, we reference paragraph 33(d), which discusses
alternate bands of aviation orange and white paint for skeletal
framework of storage tanks and similar structures, and towers that have
cables attached. The FAA also recommends spherical and/or flag markers
be used in addition to aviation orange and white paint when additional
conspicuity is necessary. Markers should be installed and displayed
according to the existing standards contained in Chapter 3, paragraph
34 of AC No. 70/70460-1.
    The FAA is also considering recommending high visibility sleeves on
the outer guy wires of these METs. While the current Obstruction
Marking and Lighting Advisory Circular does not contain such guidance
for high visibility sleeves, the FAA specifically seeks comments on
this recommendation.
    The FAA anticipates that a uniform and consistent scheme for
voluntarily marking these METs would enhance safety by making these
towers more readily identifiable for agricultural operations.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 29, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2010-33310 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 109 (Thursday, June 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34141-34143]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13414]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0025]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 26 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective June 6, 2013. The exemptions expire
on June 6, 2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments

received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On April 4, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (78 FR 20376). That notice listed 26 applicants' case histories.
The 26 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 26 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 26
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, refractive amblyopia, optic atrophy, a
macular scar, chorioretinal scarring, a central macular scar, aphakia,
a retinal scar, open angle glaucoma, advanced glaucoma, optic neuritis,
a corneal scar, loss of central vision, and metallic intraocular
foreign body with subsequent pars plana vitrectomy with foreign body
extraction, endolaser photocoagulation, cryotherapy, and cataract
extraction with IOL implant. In most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. Seventeen of the applicants were either born
with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The nine individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 7 to 40 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 26 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 2.5 to
42 years. In the past 3 years, none of the drivers were involved in
crashes but four were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the April 4, 2013
notice (78 FR 20376).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association,

June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared by the
California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best overall
crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is the
number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years of
data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 26 applicants, none of the drivers were involved in a crash and
four were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 26 applicants listed in the notice of April
4, 2013 (78 FR 20376).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 26 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 26 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Glenn Blanton (OH), Matthew Buersken (MN), Fred Fricks (PA),
Mark E. Haukom (MN), Wesley D. Hogue (AR), Anthony Lang (NH), Jason
Laub (OH), Edward Lavin (CT), Wayne Litwiller (IL), Edward Matiukas
(MD), Luther McKinney (VA), Steven J. McLain (TN), Enes Milanovic (MI),
James McClure (NC), Donie Rhoads (MT), Alfred J. Riesselman (MN), Leo
D. Roy (NH), Steven Schaumberg (NJ), Gregory C. Simmons (MD), Merreo A.
Stewart (MN), Jeffrey P. Streech (MN), James B. Taflinger, Sr. (VA),
Ronald W. Thompson (WI), Walter S. Vollmer (ID), Roy J. Ware (GA), and
Paul Williams (NY) from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

     Issued on: May 29, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-13414 Filed 6-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71620-71621]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25466]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1988-100]

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

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Application for Temporary Variance of Minimum
Flow Requirement.
    b. Project No: 1988-100.
    c. Date Filed: October 31, 2022.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Haas-Kings River Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the North Fork Kings River
in Fresno County, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Erin Wick, License Coordinator, Pacific Gas
and Electric Company,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Katherine Schmidt,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: December 16, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include the docket number P-1988-100. Comments emailed to Commission
staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests a temporary
variance of its supplemental flow requirement in Dinkey Creek below the
Dinkey Creek siphon. Specifically, the licensee proposes to forego
releasing the required 15 cubic feet per second (cfs) supplemental flow
from November 28, 2022, through February 5, 2023. The licensee explains
that the variance is necessary as a result of planned powerhouse
outages, which limit its ability to move water through the Kings
penstock into Dinkey Creek. The licensee also explains that the
proposed variance is unlikely to result in adverse effects to
biological resources due to the approximate 15 cfs natural flows in
Dinkey Creek, leakage from Wishon Reservoir of approximately 25 cfs,
and 25 cfs natural flows further downstream in the North Fork Kings
River and cooler water temperatures during the winter months.
    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected], for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 211,
214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: November 16, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25466 Filed 11-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 219)]
[Notices]
[Page 66893]
[DOCID:fr12no08-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[RT01-99-000, RT01-99-001, RT01-99-002 and RT01-99-003; RT01-86-000,
RT01-86-001 and RT01-86-002, RT01-95-000, RT01-95-001, and RT01-95-002,
RT01-2-000, RT01-2-001, RT01-2-002, and RT01-2-003, RT01-98-000, RT02-
3-000]

Regional Transmission Organizations, Bangor Hydro-Electric
Company, et al.; New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; et al.;
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.; PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; ISO
New England, Inc.; New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; NOTICE

November 4, 2008.
    Take notice that PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., New York Independent
System Operator, Inc. and ISO New England, Inc. have posted on their
Internet Web sites information updating their progress on the
resolution of RTO seams.
    Any person desiring to file comments on this information should
file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). All such comments should be filed on or before the comment
date. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings.
    Comment Date: November 24, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-26780 Filed 11-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P