[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 166 (Monday, August 27, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43571-43576]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18526]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0598; FRL-9982-85--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Regional Haze Five-Year Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. Maryland's SIP revision, the Regional Haze Five-Year
Progress Report, addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions that require
the State to submit periodic reports addressing reasonable progress
goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and to make a determination
of the adequacy of

the State's existing regional haze SIP. Maryland's progress report
notes that the State has implemented the measures that are specified in
the regional haze SIP which were due to be in place by the date of the
progress report. The progress report also notes that visibility in
federal Class I areas that may have been affected by emissions from
Maryland is improving and that these Class I areas have already met the
applicable RPGs for 2018. EPA is proposing approval of Maryland's
progress report and its determination that the State's regional haze
SIP is adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period,
which extends through 2018, and requires no substantive revision. This
action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 26,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0598 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the ``For Further Information Contact'' section. For the
full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Trouba,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision that evaluates progress towards visibility improvement in
the first implementation period, including progress towards the RPGs
for each mandatory Class I federal area \1\ (Class I area) within the
state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected
by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same
time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The progress report
SIP for the first planning period is due five years after submittal of
the initial regional haze SIP. On February 13, 2012, Maryland submitted
the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308.\2\ On August 9, 2017, Maryland, through the Maryland Department
of the Environment (MDE), submitted a progress report, as a revision to
its SIP, which detailed the progress made in the first planning period
toward implementation of the Long-Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the
2012 regional haze SIP, the visibility improvement measured at Class I
areas affected by emissions from Maryland, and a determination of the
adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \2\ On July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39938), EPA approved Maryland's
regional haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of the first
implementation period for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    Maryland's regional haze progress report SIP submittal (2017
progress report) addresses the elements for progress reports required
under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and includes a determination
as required by 40 CFR 51.308(h) that the State's existing regional haze
SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established
regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for
2018. This section summarizes Maryland's 2017 progress report and EPA's
analysis and proposed approval of Maryland's submittal.

A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    As required in 40 CFR 51.308(g), Maryland's 2017 progress report
evaluated the status of all measures included in the State's 2012
regional haze SIP for achieving RPGs for affected Class I areas.
Through consultation, states in the Mid Atlantic/Northeast Visibility
Union (MANE-VU),\3\ including Maryland, were requested to adopt and
implement control strategies to assure reasonable progress towards
improvement of visibility in the MANE-VU Class I areas. These
strategies are commonly referred to as the MANE-VU ``Ask.'' The MANE-VU
``Ask'' includes: (1) 90% or more reduction in sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emissions at 167 electric generating unit (EGU)
``stacks'' identified by MANE-VU (or comparable alternative measures),
(2) timely implementation of best available retrofit technology (BART)
\4\ requirements, (3) lower sulfur fuel oil (with limits specified for
each state), and (4) continued evaluation of other control measures.\5\
The strategies from the ``Ask'' are the measures that Maryland included
in the 2012 regional haze SIP and which are addressed in the 2017
progress report. Maryland addressed the measures listed in the 2012
regional haze SIP through implementing the state-wide Healthy Air Act
(HAA),\6\ implementing BART or alternatives to BART, adopting a low-
sulfur fuel oil regulation into COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, and evaluating other
control methods to reduce SO2 and nitrogen oxides
(NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ MANE-VU was formed by the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern
states, tribes, and federal agencies to coordinate regional haze
planning activities for the region to meet requirements in the CAA
and federal regional haze regulations.
    \4\ BART eligible sources are those sources which have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7,
1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories.
    \5\ The MANE-VU ``Ask'' was structured around the finding that
SO2 emissions were the dominate visibility impairing
pollutant at the Northeastern Class I areas and that EGUs comprised
the largest SO2 emission sector.
    \6\ The HAA, codified at COMAR 26.11.27, was effective as of
July 16, 2007 and was approved by EPA into the Maryland SIP on
September 4, 2008 (73 FR 51599).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the MANE-VU ``Ask'' to achieve 90% or more reduction
in SO2 emissions at 167 EGU ``stacks,'' Maryland
demonstrates, in the 2017 progress report, that the HAA has been
implemented and has provided significant reductions in SO2
and NOX from coal-fired EGUs, including several BART-
eligible units. At the BART eligible EGUs, the existing controls were
considered BART for NOX, SO2, and particulate
matter (PM). The HAA addressed 15 coal-fired EGUs in the state,
including the twelve identified within the ``Ask's'' 167 stacks and all
seven of the BART-eligible EGUs in the state.\7\ The HAA established
tonnage

caps for emissions of NOX and SO2 from 15 coal-
fired EGUs, 13 of which are still operating. The HAA's annual
SO2 caps were implemented in two phases, first in 2010 and
then in 2013. The annual NOX caps were implemented in 2009
and 2012. In the 2017 progress report, Maryland reported that
NOX emissions were reduced by 89% from a 2002 baseline from
these EGUs and SO2 emissions from these EGUs were reduced by
269,444 tons per year from the 2002 baseline, a 92% reduction from 2002
to 2015. Maryland asserts that the SO2 and NOX
emissions reductions under the HAA exceeded reductions that would have
been achieved through BART controls alone at the EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ R. Paul Smith Units 3 & 4 have shut down since the approval
of Maryland's regional haze SIP in 2012. The HAA originally
addressed 15 units, but currently addresses 13 active EGUs in the
state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2017 progress report also addressed implementation of BART and
alternatives to BART \8\ at Maryland's two non-EGU BART eligible source
specific units--Holcim Cement and Verso Luke Paper. In the BART
analysis for Holcim's Portland cement kiln in Hagerstown, Maryland, the
State determined and EPA approved the addition of selective non-
catalytic reduction (SNCR) as BART for PM and NOX and the
previously installed controls as BART for SO2. See 77 FR
11827 (February 28, 2012). The SIP-approved regulation, COMAR 26.11.30,
pertaining to Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the
2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), establishes
more stringent NOX limits for Portland Cement Plants in the
State, including Holcim Cement. 83 FR 13192 (March 28, 2018). As a
result of the RACT requirements, Holcim upgraded its equipment in 2016
from a long-dry kiln to a pre-heater/pre-calciner kiln and installed a
SNCR addressing BART requirements for NOX and PM. Holcim is
required to meet a limit of 2.4 pounds (lbs) of NOX per ton
of clinker on a 30-day rolling average effective April 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The requirements for alternative measures are established at
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2012, EPA approved BART emission limits for power boiler
25, a BART subject source, at the Verso Luke Paper Mill. 77 FR 39938
(June 13, 2012). In July 2017, EPA removed the previously approved BART
requirements for SO2 and NOX from power boiler 25
(No. 25) and replaced them with new, alternative emission requirements
as BART.\9\ EPA established an annual SO2 cap for power
boiler 25 and approved alternative BART emission limits for
SO2 and NOX for power boiler 24 (No. 24): (1) A
new BART emission limit of 0.28 pounds per million British thermal
units (lbs/mmBtu), measured as an hourly average for SO2;
and (2) a new BART emission limit of 0.4 lb/mmBtu, measured on a 30-day
rolling average for NOX. 82 FR 35451 (July 31, 2017). The
BART PM limit on power boiler No. 25 remains at 0.07 lb/MMBtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The BART limits for power boiler 25 approved in 2012 were
0.07 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/mmBtu) for PM,
0.40 lb/mmBtu on a rolling 30 day average for NOX and
0.44 lb/mmBtu for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Included in the MANE-VU ``Ask'' and as a measure in the State's
2012 regional haze SIP was a low-sulfur oil strategy. In 2014, Maryland
adopted amendments to COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, ``Specifications for No. 1 and
No. 2 Fuel Oil.'' The amendments, effective October 13, 2014, lowered
the maximum allowable amount of sulfur in #1 and #2 fuel oil in two
stages, from 3,000 to 2,000 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur in 2014,
and then from 2,000 to 500 ppm of sulfur in 2016. While this strategy
does not meet the exact specifications or timeline of the ``Ask,''
MANE-VU left an option for flexibility in reducing SO2
emissions by implementing other strategies. In the 2012 regional haze
SIP, Maryland projected that the reductions achieved by implementing
the HAA would greatly exceed projected reductions from fully
implementing the ``Ask's'' low-sulfur fuel oil strategy. Maryland
stated it intends to submit this regulation, COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, for
future SIP approval.
    In the 2017 progress report, Maryland also mentions EPA approved
for the Maryland SIP amendments adopted into COMAR 26.11.38, ``Control
of NOX emissions from Coal-Fired Electric Generating
Units,'' which addresses the 2012 regional haze SIP measure to evaluate
other control methods to reduce SO2 and NOX. 82
FR 24546 (June 29, 2017). For 13 coal-fired EGUs in the state, Maryland
asserts this regulation establishes a system-wide emissions rate of
0.15 lbs/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling average during the ozone season for
NOX emissions at all coal-burning EGUs owned by the same
company. An additional requirement in COMAR 26.11.38 to optimize
controls is monitored by compliance with a 24-hour block emissions
limit during ozone season for each coal-burning EGU. Although COMAR
26.11.38 is specifically designed to reduce ozone impacts by reducing
NOX emissions, Maryland stated in the 2017 progress report
that it believes that this regulation benefits visibility in nearby
Class I areas because NOX is a visibility impairing
pollutant as well as a precursor to ozone.
    EPA finds that Maryland's analysis in its 2017 progress report
adequately addresses the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g),
as the State demonstrated the implementation of control measures in the
Maryland regional haze SIP and in the MANE-VU ``Ask.''
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require the state to
provide analysis of emissions trends of visibility-impairing pollutants
from the state's sources by type or category over the past five years
based on the most recent updated emissions inventory. In Section 4 of
the 2017 progress report, Maryland provided an assessment of the
following visibility impairing pollutants: SO2,
NOX, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) by category. MANE-VU and Maryland determined
that SO2 emissions are the most significant pollutant
impacting regional haze in MANE-VU Class I areas, therefore, the bulk
of visibility improvement was expected to result from reductions in
SO2 emissions from sources inside and outside of the State.
The emissions reductions data in Table 1 demonstrates that
NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM2.5 emissions
have decreased from Maryland's baseline emissions in 2002 to 2014, the
last year for which a comprehensive national emission inventory (NEI)
is available.

                Table 1--Emissions Reductions in Maryland by Sector in 1,000 Tons per Year (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Percent
                Sector                          Pollutant              2002            2014         reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................................  NOX                               104.56           27.00              74
                                        PM2.5                              30.16           10.90              64
                                        SO2                               320.76           49.43              85
                                        VOC                                12.54            4.11              67
Non-Road..............................  NOX                                58.35           31.13              47

                                        PM2.5                               4.54            2.58              43
                                        SO2                                16.65            4.47              73
                                        VOC                                56.73           27.61              51
On-Road...............................  NOX                               167.38           61.64              63
                                        PM2.5                               5.79            2.15              63
                                        SO2                                 4.96            0.52              90
                                        VOC                                65.77           30.27              54
Area..................................  NOX                                12.79           12.64               1
                                        PM2.5                              16.48           11.77              29
                                        SO2                                11.12            5.94              47
                                        VOC                               120.08           47.10              61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess emissions reductions from air pollution control measures
being implemented between the baseline period and 2018, MANE-VU
developed emissions projections for 2018 for the first round of
regional haze SIPs. Section 4 of Maryland's 2017 progress report
details emission trends from 2002 to 2014 and compares the trends to
MANE-VU's projections of 2018 inventories that were included in
Maryland's 2012 regional haze SIP. Maryland asserts in its 2017
progress report and EPA finds that emissions of SO2,
NOX, VOC and PM2.5 for all sectors show a
downward trend from 2002 through 2014. The 2014 NEI data shows
SO2, VOC and PM2.5 emissions significantly below
the projected 2018 totals in all categories. NOX emissions
declined steeply between 2002 and 2014 largely due to point source and
on-road emission reductions. Maryland states in the 2017 progress
report that the overall reductions in all pollutants and downward
trends far outweigh minimal increases in any sector in years between
the baseline and 2018, and the increases do not inhibit the State's
ability to improve visibility, reduce emissions of NOX and
SO2, and continue to make progress toward the overall
regional haze goals. Section 4 of Maryland's 2017 progress report also
analyzes emissions in the MANE-VU region. Overall haze-impacting
emissions have declined and are projected to continue to decline.
Maryland concludes that the general decline in pollutants in the region
indicate that changes in anthropogenic emissions have not and will not
impede progress to improving visibility or Class I areas meeting their
RPGs.
    EPA finds Maryland has adequately addressed the provisions under 40
CFR 51.308(g) relating to emission reductions and emission trends.
Maryland detailed the SO2 and NOX reductions in
Maryland from the 2002 regional haze baseline to 2014, the most
recently available year of data at the time of the development of
Maryland's 2017 progress report, discussed overall emission trends for
all visibility-impacting pollutants, and discussed the implementation
of regional haze SIP measures including BART. EPA agrees with
Maryland's conclusion that it is reasonable to conclude anthropogenic
emissions will not impede progress to improving visibility in the
region given the large overall reductions in pollutant emissions,
particularly in SO2 emissions in the State and in the Mid-
Atlantic region.
    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) also require states with
Class I areas within their borders to provide information on current
visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions expressed in terms of
five-year averages of those annual values. Maryland does not have any
Class I areas; however, the 2017 progress report provided visibility
condition data to support the assessment that the regional haze SIP is
sufficient to enable other states to meet the RPGs for Class I areas
affected by Maryland.
    Seven Class I areas in the MANE-VU and Visibility Improvement State
and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) Regional Planning
Organizations (RPOs) \10\ are impacted by sulfate emissions from
Maryland's sources, as was stated in the State's 2012 regional haze SIP
submission which EPA approved in July 2012.\11\ 77 FR 39938. The
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
monitoring program provides data on the air pollutants that contribute
to regional haze. Maryland's 2017 progress report included IMPROVE
visibility data for each Class I area in the region which is impacted
by Maryland sources and addresses the progress from the baseline 2000-
2004 five-year average visibility to the 2011-2015 five-year average
visibility for all affected Class I areas. Table 2 shows IMPROVE
visibility data and shows the progress from the baseline period to the
most recent averaging period and the RPG for each Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Maryland was identified as influencing the visibility
impairment of the following Class I areas: Acadia National Park,
Brigantine National Wildlife Refuge, and Lye Brook Wilderness Area
as well as the Dolly Sods Wilderness, Otter Creek Wilderness, and
Shenandoah National Park.
    \11\ VISTAS is a collaborative effort of state governments,
tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to
initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of
regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the
Southeastern United States. Member States and Tribes include: the
States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia and
the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians.

                           Table 2--Observed Visibility vs. Reasonable Progress Goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2000-2004 5-    2011-2015 5-    Met 2018 RPG
            Class I area IMPROVE site              year  average   year  average     already?        2018 RPG
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                20% Haziest Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park............................            22.9            17.4             Yes            19.4
Brigantine Wilderness...........................            29.0            22.6             Yes            25.1

Great Gulf/Presidential Range-Dry River                     22.8            16.4             Yes            19.1
 Wilderness.....................................
Lye Brook Wilderness............................            24.4            18.0             Yes            20.9
Moosehorn Wilderness/Roosevelt Campobello                   21.7            16.8             Yes            19.0
 International Park.............................
Dolly Sods Wilderness/Otter Creek \12\..........            29.5            21.2             Yes            21.7
Shenandoah National Park........................            29.3            20.7             Yes            21.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                20% Clearest Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia National Park............................             8.8             6.9             Yes             8.3
Brigantine Wilderness...........................            14.3            12.0             Yes            14.3
Great Gulf/Presidential Range-Dry River                      7.7             5.7             Yes             7.2
 Wilderness.....................................
Lye Brook Wilderness............................             6.4             5.3             Yes             5.5
Moosehorn Wilderness/Roosevelt Campobello                    9.2             6.9             Yes             8.6
 International Park.............................
Dolly Sods Wilderness...........................            12.3             8.2             Yes            11.1
Shenandoah National Park........................            10.9             7.9             Yes             8.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes the substantial progress made in the IMPOVE visibility
data, as the Class I areas affected by emissions from Maryland have
already achieved and surpassed the 2018 RPGs set in the first regional
haze SIPs in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions. Class I areas
affected by emissions from Maryland have current visibility conditions
better than baseline conditions and better than RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The West Virginia 5-year progress report submittal states
that the IMPROVE monitor in Dolly Sods is a surrogate for Otter
Creek. See 80 FR 32019 (June 5, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finds Maryland provided the required information regarding
visibility conditions and implementation of all measures included in
the State's regional haze SIP to meet the requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(g), specifically providing baseline visibility conditions (2000-
2004), current conditions based on the most recently available IMPROVE
monitoring data (2011-2015), and an assessment of the change in
visibility impairment at its Class I areas.
    As stated, Maryland does not have any Class I areas; therefore,
Maryland is not required to monitor for visibility-impairing
pollutants. Maryland's visibility monitoring strategy relies upon Class
I areas' participation in the IMPROVE network; however, Maryland stated
that it does intend to maintain the IMPROVE site at Frostburg
Reservoir. EPA finds Maryland has adequately addressed the requirements
for a monitoring strategy for regional haze and finds no further
modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary.
    In its 2017 progress report, Maryland concludes the elements and
strategies relied on in its regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable
neighboring states to meet all established RPGs. As shown in Table 2
above, visibility on least--impaired and most--impaired days from 2000
through 2014 has improved at all Class I areas affected by emissions
from Maryland. In addition, all Class I areas impacted by Maryland's
emissions have met their RPGs. EPA therefore finds Maryland has
adequately addressed the provisions for its progress report in 40 CFR
51.308(g).

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    In the 2017 progress report, Maryland submitted a negative
declaration to EPA regarding the need for additional actions or
emission reductions in Maryland beyond those already in its regional
haze SIP to address the requirement for a determination of adequacy in
40 CFR 51.308(h). Maryland determined the existing regional haze SIP
requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the
RPGs for Class I areas affected by the State's sources. The basis for
the State's negative declaration is that visibility has improved at all
Class I areas impacted by Maryland's sources in the MANE-VU and VISTAS
regions. In addition, there has been a significant downward trend in
emissions of NOX, SO2, VOC, and PM2.5
from the baseline year for Maryland's regional haze SIP (2002) to the
latest emission inventory for Maryland in 2014. In addition,
SO2, VOC, and PM2.5 emissions are significantly
below the 2018 totals projected in Maryland's 2012 regional haze SIP
submittal.
    EPA concludes that Maryland has adequately addressed the provisions
under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because visibility and emission trends indicate
that Class I areas impacted by Maryland's sources are meeting or
exceeding the RPGs for 2018, and expect to continue to meet or exceed
the RPGs for 2018. Thus, EPA finds Maryland's negative declaration
(i.e., that the existing regional haze SIP requires no further
substantive revision to achieve goals for visibility improvement and
emission reductions) reasonable and in accordance with requirements in
40 CFR 51.308(h).

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Maryland's 2017 progress report,
submitted on August 9, 2017, as meeting the applicable CAA requirements
in section 110 and meeting regional haze requirements set forth in 40
CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

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 approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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 to approve Maryland's 2017 progress
report 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 15, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-18526 Filed 8-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4801-4802]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02635]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC19-54-000
    Applicants: FPL Energy New York, LLC, FPL ENERGY ROCKAWAY PEAKING
FACILITIES, LLC, Bayswater Peaking Facility, LLC, Jamaica Bay Peaking
Facility, LLC, MPH Rockaway Peakers, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of FPL Energy New York, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/8/19.
    Accession Number: 20190208-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/19.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3285-002; ER10-3181 003;ER17-177 001.
    Applicants: UGI Utilities Inc., UGI Development Company, UGI Energy
Services, LLC.
    Description: Errata to October 31, 2018 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of the UGI MBR Companies.
    Filed Date: 2/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20190211-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2774-003.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, Dominion Energy
Generation Marketing, Inc., Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Dominion
Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., on behalf of Virginia Electric and Power
Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/8/19.
    Accession Number: 20190208-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-203-003.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, Dominion Energy
Generation Marketing, Inc., Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Dominion
Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Dominion
Resources Services, Inc., on behalf of Virginia Electric and Power
Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/8/19.
    Accession Number: 20190208-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1030-000.
    Applicants: Masspower, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of succession to be
effective 2/12/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20190211-5158.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1031-000.
    Applicants: South Shore Energy, LLC, Dairyland Power Cooperative.
    Description: Request for Expedited One-Time Limited Waiver of South
Shore Energy, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/8/19.
    Accession Number: 20190208-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1032-000.
    Applicants: Central Maine Power Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Tariff Schedule W-1 of
Central Maine Power Company.
    Filed Date: 2/8/19.
    Accession Number: 20190208-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/1/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1033-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-02-12_SA 1710
Certificate of Concurrence AEP-Duke Energy IA to be effective 12/12/
2018.
    Filed Date: 2/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20190212-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1034-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-02-12_Termination of SA
3101 GIA and SA 3102 MPFCA to be effective 3/3/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20190212-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1035-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-02-12_SA 3045 Ida
Grove-MEC 1st Rev GIA (J412) to be effective 1/29/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/12/19.

    Accession Number: 20190212-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings.
    Docket Numbers: RD18-3-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation,
Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
    Description: Amendment to the Joint Petition of the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation and Western Electricity Coordinating
Council for the Approval of Retirement of Regional Reliability Standard
PRC-004-WECC-2.
    Filed Date: 2/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20190211-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/4/19.

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

    Dated: February 12, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02635 Filed 2-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 46443]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0627]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; General Administrative Procedures:
Citizen Petitions; Petition for Reconsideration or Stay of Action;
Advisory Opinions

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``General Administrative Procedures:
Citizen Petitions; Petition for Reconsideration or Stay of Action;
Advisory Opinions'' has been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 27, 2012, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled '' General Administrative
Procedures: Citizen Petitions; Petition for Reconsideration or Stay of
Action; Advisory Opinions'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0183.
The approval expires on June 30, 2014. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-18976 Filed 8-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48404-48406]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19790]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0052]

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 34 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 were granted July 23, 2015. The exemptions expire
on July 23, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<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. If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. 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 and/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.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. 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
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On July 22, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (80 FR 35699). That notice listed 34 applicants' case histories.
The 34 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 34 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. 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 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 34
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, complete loss of vision, retinal
detachment, corneal scarring, Descemet's folds, congenital amblyopia,
prosthetic eye, macular hole, central scotoma, congenital glaucoma,
staphyloma, refractive amblyopia, total cataract with iris synechia,
retinal scar, optic nerve injury, cataract, mydriasis, amblyopia with
exotropia, aphakia, and posterior senechiae. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed. Twenty-four of the applicants
were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood.
    The 10 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of four to 43 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 34 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 in careers ranging four three to
35 years. In the past three years, four drivers were involved in
crashes, and three drivers 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 June 22, 2015
notice (80 FR 35699).

IV. 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.
    FMCSA believes it 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 34 applicants, four drivers were involved in crashes, and three
drivers 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 34 applicants listed in the notice of June
22, 2015 (80 FR 35699).
    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 34 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.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 34 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Robert J. Bickel (MI)
Steven J. Brauer (NJ)
Steven R. Brinegar (TX)
Garry D. Burkholder (PA)
Orlando A. Cabrera (FL)
Dennis W. Cosens, Jr. (NM)
Rodney R. Dawson (KY)
David S. Devine (ID)
Lenton L. Dunston, Jr. (VA)
Raymond C. Favreau (VT)
William J. Gargiulo (OH)
Wladyslaw Gogola (IL)
Antonio Gomez (PA)
Fred S. Graham (TN)
Mark Grenier (CT)
Jay R. Hendricks (FL)
Steven C. Holland (OK)
Acquillious Jackson III (SC)
Jimmy D. Johnson II (TN)
Bradley J. Kearl (UT)
Larry G. Kreke (IL)
Richard A. Lemke (WI)
Lawrence McGowan (OH)
James R. Millijen (CO)
Christopher P. Mroczka (MD)
Gary A. Oster, Jr. (OR)
Mark A. Pleskovitch (IL)
Edward J. Puto (CT)
Andrew Risner (OH)
Kyle B. Sharp (MI)
Francis A. St. Pierre (NH)
Sukru Tamirci (NY)
George F. Treece (IL)
Jeff L. Wheeler (IA)

    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: August 6, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-19790 Filed 8-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: September 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 186)]
[Notices]
[Page 56138-56139]
[DOCID:fr26se06-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-594-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes
in FERC Gas Tariff

September 19, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 14, 2006, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with
a proposed effective date of October 14, 2006: Sixth Revised Sheet No.
196.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date

need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than
the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-15678 Filed 9-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P