[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 20006]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07300]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34552; File No. 812-15310]

Brighthouse Funds Trust I, et al.

April 1, 2022.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'' or ``SEC'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under Section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from Section 15(c) of
the Act.

Summary of Application: The requested exemption would permit a Trust's
board of trustees (the ``Board'') to approve new sub-advisory
agreements and material amendments to existing sub-advisory agreements
without complying with the in-person meeting requirement of Section
15(c) of the Act.

Applicants:  Brighthouse Funds Trust I, Brighthouse Funds Trust II
(each a ``Trust'' and collectively, the ``Trusts''), and Brighthouse
Investment Advisers, LLC (``BIA'' or the ``Adviser'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 17, 2022.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing
the SEC's Secretary at [email protected] and serving the
relevant applicant with a copy of the request by email, if an email
address is listed for the relevant applicant below, or personally or by
mail, if a physical address is listed for the relevant applicant below.
    Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m.
on April 26, 2022, and should be accompanied by proof of service on
applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate
of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should
state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the
desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request,
and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing
may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: The Commission: [email protected]. Applicants:
Kristi Slavin, Brighthouse Investment Advisers, LLC, 125 High Street,
Suite 732, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, Brian D. McCabe Esq, Ropes &
Gray LLP, Prudential Tower, 800 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts,
02199, Jeremy C. Smith, Esq, Ropes & Gray LLP, 1211 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, New York 10036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Ragen, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For Applicants' representations, legal
analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application,
dated February 17, 2022, which may be obtained via the Commission's
website by searching for the file number at the top of this document,
or for an Applicant using the Company name search field on the SEC's
EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy/companysearch.html. You may also
call the SEC's Public Reference Room at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-07300 Filed 4-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24373-24378]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09536]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0465; FRL-9805-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program for
Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a state implementation plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR) on June 7, 2012, concerning the State's vehicle inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program in southeast Wisconsin. The revision amends
I/M program requirements in the active control measures portion of the
ozone SIP to reflect changes that have been implemented at the state
level since EPA fully approved the I/M program on August 16, 2001. The
submittal also includes a demonstration under section 110(l) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) addressing lost emission reductions associated with
the program changes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0465, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0465. 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. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

    I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    II. Background
    III. What changes have been made to the Wisconsin I/M program?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal?
    a. Substantive I/M Requirements
    b. Performance Evaluation
    c. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance
Under CAA Section 110(l)
V. What action is EPA proposing to take?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period.

II. Background

    The general purpose of motor vehicle I/M programs is to reduce
emissions from in-use motor vehicles in need of repairs and thereby
contribute to state and local efforts to improve air quality and to
attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    Wisconsin has operated an I/M program in southeastern Wisconsin
since 1984. The program is presently operating in Kenosha, Milwaukee,
Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington and Waukesha Counties.
Initially, all vehicles were inspected by

measuring tailpipe emission levels. Since July of 2001, all model year
(MY) 1996 and later cars and light trucks have been inspected by
scanning the vehicle's computerized second generation on-board
diagnostic (OBDII) systems. EPA fully approved Wisconsin's I/M program
on August 16, 2001, (66 FR 42949) including the program's legal
authority and administrative requirements found in sections 100.20 and
285.30 of the Wisconsin Statutes and Chapters NR 485 and Trans 131 of
the Wisconsin Administrative Code. As of July 2008, the program dropped
tailpipe testing entirely and inspected all vehicles by scanning the
OBDII systems. This change was the result of statutory changes in the
State's 2007-2009 biennial budget which exempted model years of
vehicles not Federally required to be equipped with the OBDII
technology (MY 1995 and earlier cars and light trucks and MY 2006 and
earlier heavy trucks).

III. What changes have been made to the Wisconsin I/M program?

    The Wisconsin I/M SIP revision submitted on June 7, 2012, reflects
several changes to the approved program. The most significant changes
to the Wisconsin I/M program took effect beginning on July 2008 and
include:
     The elimination of I/M program testing requirements for
non-OBDII equipped vehicles. This change impacted MY 1968 through 1995
vehicles. These vehicles were previously subject to tailpipe testing.
     The elimination of I/M program testing requirements for
gasoline vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) between 8,500
to 10,000 pounds (lbs). This change impacted MY 1996 through 2006
vehicles. Previously, all vehicles up to 10,000 lbs. were subject to
testing.
     The addition of I/M program testing requirements for
gasoline vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 to 14,000 lbs. This change
impacted MY 2007 and later vehicles.
     The addition of I/M program testing requirements for
diesel vehicles with a GVWR up to 14,000 lbs. This change impacted MY
2007 and later vehicles.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The purpose of adding I/M testing requirements for heavier
gasoline and diesel vehicles was to offset any lost emission
reductions from the elimination of tailpipe testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the changes discussed above, the June 7, 2012,
submittal included a number of minor revisions to the program that do
not have a significant impact on overall program operations or the
emissions reductions associated with it. A full list of the changes
submitted by Wisconsin for EPA approval include: Revisions to Section
100.20, Wisconsin Statutes (2001 Wisconsin Act 16, published August 31,
2001; 2003 Wisconsin Act 220, published April 22, 2003; 2005 Wisconsin
Act 49, published October 27, 2005; 2007 Wisconsin Act 20, published
October 26, 2007; 2009 Wisconsin Act 228, published May 19, 2010).
Revisions to Section 285.30, Wisconsin Statutes (2003 Wisconsin Act
192, published April 21, 2004; 2007 Wisconsin Act 20, published October
26, 2007; 2007 Wisconsin Act 33, published December 3, 2007; 2009
Wisconsin Act 157, published March 24, 2010; 2009 Wisconsin Act 311,
published May 26, 2010). Revisions to Wisconsin Administrative Code,
Chapter NR 485 (Clearinghouse Rule CR 05-072 effective April 1, 2006;
Clearinghouse Rule CR 10-049 effective December 1, 2010). Revisions to
Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter Trans 131 (Clearinghouse Rule CR
01-121 effective April 1, 2002; Clearinghouse Rule CR 07-114 effective
July 1, 2008; Clearinghouse Rule CR 10-088 effective January 1, 2011).
    To support the changes outlined above, the revision also included a
summary of the MOVES2010a modeling inputs used to calculate program
benefits; a demonstration for meeting the modeling requirements for
EPA's alternate low enhanced I/M performance standard; a section 110(l)
demonstration that includes offset emission credits; and an emissions
inventory evaluation by Sonoma Technology, Inc. WDNR held a public
hearing on the Wisconsin I/M SIP revision on May 7, 2012, in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin and allowed for written public comments until May 11, 2012.
Full copies of the SIP revision are located in EPA's docket.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal?

a. Substantive I/M Requirements

    EPA's requirements for basic and enhanced I/M programs are found in
40 CFR part 51, subpart S. The I/M SIP revision submitted by Wisconsin
must be consistent with these requirements and must meet EPA's
requirements for enforceability and section 110(l) requirements of the
CAA. The specific aspects of I/M affected by the submitted revisions to
the Wisconsin I/M program include vehicle coverage and exemptions, test
procedures and standards, test equipment, waivers and compliance,
enforcement against contractors, inspector training and licensing or
certification, and the performance standard evaluation.
1. Vehicle Coverage--40 CFR 51.356
    Under 40 CFR 51.356, the performance standard for enhanced I/M
programs (including alternate low enhanced programs) assumes coverage
of all MY 1968 and later light duty vehicles and trucks up to 8,500
pounds GVWR, and includes vehicles operating on all fuel types.
Vehicles registered or required to be registered within the I/M program
area boundaries, and fleets primarily operated within the I/M program
area boundaries and belonging to the covered model years and vehicle
classes comprise the subject vehicles. Under EPA regulations, other
levels of coverage may be approved if the necessary emission reductions
are achieved. The Wisconsin I/M program originally approved in the SIP
by EPA, required testing of MY 1968 and later gasoline vehicles with a
GVWR up to 10,000 lbs. Vehicles were first subject to the requirements
when the vehicles were two model years old and every two years
thereafter. The I/M SIP revision amends these provisions to eliminate
emission inspection of vehicles MY 1995 and earlier, and exempts from
testing off-road utility vehicles, lightweight utility vehicles, and
low-speed vehicles. The I/M SIP revision adds emission inspection
requirements for vehicles MY 2007 and later with a GVWR up to 14,000
lbs., while limiting emission inspection of vehicles MY 2006 and
earlier to only those with a GVWR up to 8,500 lbs. Finally, the I/M SIP
revision adds emission inspection of vehicles MY 2007 and later that
are powered by diesel fuel. Under the revised requirements, vehicles
are first subject to the requirements when vehicles are four model
years old and every two years thereafter. However, as described in
section IV.b below, EPA concludes that the state has demonstrated that
it meets the alternate low enhanced performance standards with the
revised program changes. Thus, the changes in vehicle coverage under
the revised requirements are acceptable under 40 CFR 51.356.
2. Test Procedures-Standards--40 CFR 51.357
    Under 40 CFR 51.357, I/M programs must establish and implement
written test procedures and pass/fail standards for each model year and
vehicle type. The Wisconsin I/M program originally approved in the SIP
by EPA already contains detailed procedures for connecting to the OBDII
system in 1996 and newer vehicles, information on

readiness codes for OBDII tests, and pass/fail standards for OBDII
equipped vehicles. Under the revised requirements Wisconsin establishes
OBDII as the primary testing method and eliminates the previously
established idle and transient tailpipe testing methods. The changes
repeal references in the requirements relating to these now eliminated
testing methods including emission equipment specifications and
inspection requirements. In addition, the revised requirements
eliminate the evaporative emission test also known as the ``gas cap
test'', which was previously required but is no longer necessary with
OBDII technology. This part of the submittal meets the requirements of
40 CFR 51.357 and 40 CFR 51.358 of the Federal I/M regulation.
3. Test Equipment--40 CFR 51.358
    Computerized test systems are required for performing any
measurement on subject vehicles. The Federal I/M regulation requires
that the state SIP submittal include written technical specifications
for all test equipment used in the program. The specifications must
describe the analysis process, the necessary test equipment, the
required features, and written acceptance testing criteria and
procedures. The Wisconsin I/M program originally approved in the SIP by
EPA already contains detailed technical specifications for program test
equipment that mirror EPA's requirements and guidance. As mentioned
before, the revised changes repeal references in the requirements
relating to idle and transient tailpipe testing methods, including
emission equipment specifications and inspection requirements retaining
the requirements and specifications for OBDII testing. This part of the
submittal continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.358 of the
Federal I/M regulation.
4. Waivers and Compliance via Diagnostic Inspection--40 CFR 51.360
    The Federal I/M regulation allows for the issuance of a waiver,
which is a form of compliance with the program requirements that allows
a motorist to comply without meeting the applicable test standards. An
expenditure of at least $450 in repairs, adjusted annually to reflect
the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as compared to the CPI for
1989, is required in order to qualify for a waiver in enhanced I/M
areas. An expenditure of at least $75 for pre-1981 vehicles and $200
for 1981 and newer vehicles is required in order to qualify for a
waiver in basic I/M areas. Waivers can only be issued after a vehicle
has failed a retest performed after all qualifying repairs have been
made. Any available warranty coverage must be used to obtain repairs
before expenditures can be counted toward the cost limit. Tampering
related repairs must not be applied toward the cost limit. Repairs must
be appropriate to the cause of the test failure. Under the I/M program
approved in the SIP, Wisconsin established waiver limits in section
110.20(13) of the Wisconsin Statutes and in NR 485.045(1) requiring an
expenditure of at least $75 for pre-1981 vehicles and $200 for 1981 and
newer vehicles in order to qualify for a waiver in Sheboygan County and
an expenditure of at least $450 in repairs, adjusted annually to
reflect the change in the CPI as compared to the CPI for 1989, as
established by the EPA, for the remaining I/M counties. Sheboygan
County had a lower repair cost limits since its nonattainment
classification established in 1992 was at a lower level than that for
the other six counties. In the Wisconsin I/M SIP revision, the
requirements have expanded the coverage of the inflation adjusted
repair cost limit in NR 485.045 to all counties subject to the I/M
program and to vehicles with OBDII systems, thereby raising the lower
limits for Sheboygan County. In addition, the revision clarifies that
to obtain a waiver of compliance on the basis of statutory repair cost
limit, a vehicle must pass a waiver emission equipment inspection. This
part of the submittal continues to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.360.
5. Enforcement Against Contractors, Stations and Inspectors--40 CFR
51.364 and Inspector Training and Licensing or Certification--40 CFR
51.367
    The Federal I/M regulation requires all inspectors to be formally
trained and licensed or certified to perform inspections. In addition,
the regulation requires the establishment of minimum penalties for
violations of program rules and procedures that can be imposed against
stations, contactors and inspectors. The state must include in the SIP
the legal authority for establishing and imposing penalties, civil
fines, license suspensions and revocations. The Wisconsin I/M program
originally approved in the SIP by EPA already includes the legal
authority that addresses these requirements. However, the Wisconsin I/M
SIP revision includes amendments to the legal authority that also allow
the State to establish methods for emission testing and delivery of
testing services, in addition to the previously established method of a
single contractor. It establishes as the service delivery method a
possibility of contractors who perform the test at their own
facilities, or by subcontracted testing at subcontractors' facilities,
or at self-service facilities where a vehicle owner may test the
vehicle. The revisions expands the inspector training and licensing
requirements to include all employees of any authorized inspection
facility subcontractor and expands the penalty and audit requirements
originally approved by EPA to include other authorized testing
facilities. This part of the submittal meets the requirements of 40 CFR
51.364 and 51.365.

b. Performance Evaluation

    As part of the June 7, 2012, I/M SIP revision, WDNR provided an
updated performance evaluation using the EPA's motor vehicle emissions
simulator model, MOVES2010a.\2\ The updated performance evaluation
included a summary report outlining the modeling results and paper
copies of the MOVES2010a modeling input files. The purpose of the
updated performance evaluation is to demonstrate that Wisconsin's
vehicle I/M program, as amended, would continue to meet the Federal
enhanced I/M performance standard in southeast Wisconsin. The results
of WDNR's analysis are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below, which show
that the emissions reductions achieved by the Wisconsin I/M program, as
amended, are higher than those achieved under the performance
standards. The amended Wisconsin I/M program thus continues to achieve
greater emissions reductions than the Federal model program because the
Wisconsin I/M program includes elements that go beyond Federal I/M
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR
9411). EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions:
MOVES2010a in September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April 2012. Both of
these minor revisions enhance model performance and do not
significantly affect the criteria pollutant emissions results from
MOVES2010.

  Table 1--Summary of Results of WDNR's Alternative Low Enhanced Performance Modeling for Six County Milwaukee-
        Racine Nonattainment Area (Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and Waukesha Counties)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                2002              2009              2012              2015
                  Year                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          VOC \3\  NOX \4\    VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M Performance Standard Benefits (grams/   0.071    0.040    0.039    0.009    0.025    0.004    0.017    0.002
 mile)..................................
Actual I/M Program Benefits (grams/mile)    0.134    0.193    0.060    0.097    0.037    0.063    0.027    0.041
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Volatile organic compound.
\4\ Oxides of nitrogen.

    Table 2--Summary of Results of WDNR's Alternative Low Enhanced Performance Modeling for Sheboygan County
                                               Nonattainment Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                2002              2009              2012              2015
                  Year                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I/M Performance Standard Benefits (grams/   0.080    0.044    0.044    0.009    0.030    0.005    0.020    0.002
 mile)..................................
Actual I/M Program Benefits (grams/mile)    0.113    0.165    0.065    0.095    0.044    0.069    0.032    0.045
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the I/M SIP revision, EPA finds that WDNR's
performance standard evaluation and use of the alternate low enhanced
I/M performance standard to be acceptable. EPA also finds that the
Wisconsin I/M program, as amended, exceeds the alternate low enhanced
performance standard in both the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan County
nonattainment areas as required under 40 CFR 51.351.

c. Demonstrating Noninterference With Attainment and Maintenance Under
CAA Section 110(l)

    Revisions to SIP-approved control measures must meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(l) to be approved by EPA. Section
110(l) states:

``The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171),
or any other applicable requirement of this Act.''

    EPA interprets section 110(l) to apply to all requirements of the
CAA and to all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment,
unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria
pollutants. EPA also interprets section 110(l) to require a
demonstration addressing all pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient
concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. In the
absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no interference
with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under section
110(l), EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to substitute
equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a SIP
approved program, as long as actual emissions in the air are not
increased. ``Equivalent'' emissions reductions mean reductions which
are equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the control
measure approved in the active portion of the SIP. In order to show
that compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, modeling or
adequate justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent
reductions must represent actual, new emissions reductions achieved in
a contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control
measure, in order to preserve the status quo level of emission in the
air. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions
reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and
surplus to be approved into the SIP.
    The Wisconsin I/M SIP revision includes a 110(l) demonstration that
uses equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for emission
reduction losses resulting from changes to the SIP approved I/M program
in southeast Wisconsin. The submittal indicates that WDNR used the
latest version of EPA's motor vehicle emissions model program,
MOVES2010a, to estimate the emissions effects of the program changes.
Based on our review of the information provided, EPA finds that WDNR
used reasonable methods and appropriate models in estimating the
emissions effects of the program changes. WDNR's MOVES modeling shows
that the changes to the Wisconsin I/M program result in fewer
reductions than would have otherwise been obtained from the pre-2008 I/
M program approved in the SIP by EPA. Table 3 below summarizes WDNR's
emissions calculations comparing the current program to the SIP
approved I/M program in units of tons per summer weekday (tpswd) and
highlights the emissions difference that needs to be addressed as part
of the 110(l) demonstration.

                               Table 3--(SIP I/M Program vs. Current I/M Program)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            SIP I/M  program     Revised I/M        Emissions
                                                           ------------------      program         difference
                           Year                                              -----------------------------------
                                                              VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009......................................................     4.55     6.53     3.47     5.59     1.08     0.94
2012......................................................     3.55     4.92     2.31     3.97     1.24     0.95
2015......................................................     2.59     3.14     1.76     2.66     0.83     0.48
2018......................................................     1.88     2.06     1.46     1.85     0.42     0.21
2022......................................................     1.59     1.49     1.27     1.35     0.32     0.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Wisconsin I/M program reduces emissions of VOC and
NOX. VOC and NOX are contributors to the
formation of ground-level ozone and fine particular matter. Thus, the
increase in VOC and NOX needs to be offset with equivalent
(or greater) emissions reductions from another control measure in order
to demonstrate non-interference with the 8-hour ozone and particulate
matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. Although the program also results in
carbon monoxide (CO) emissions reductions, substitute CO emissions
reductions are not needed for this demonstration, because southeast
Wisconsin is attaining the CO NAAQS and CO levels in the area are well
below the standard. WDNR has estimated that the 10.13 tpswd of CO lost
from the I/M program changes in 2012, the year where the amended
changes have the greatest emission impact, represent only 0.98 percent
of the total CO emissions inventory in the region and it is unlikely
that the amendments to the Wisconsin I/M program will interfere with
the area's ability to continue to attain the CO NAAQS.
    To address the projected loss of VOC and NOX emission
reductions, WDNR reviewed its records of permitted emissions sources in
southeast Wisconsin and identified those sources that have ceased
operation since the Wisconsin I/M program changes have taken place.
WDNR identified eleven facilities (See table 4) in the 6 County
Milwaukee-Racine (Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and
Waukesha Counties) and Sheboygan County nonattainment areas that have
permanently closed and have expired permits that have been revoked. The
expiration and revocation of these sources' permits allows the State to
use the emission credits associated with them for other purposes under
the SIP and makes such reductions permanent and enforceable. WDNR
accounted for 506.47 tons of VOC per year and 72.71 tons of
NOX per year based on maximum annual reported emissions from
2005 through 2009.

                  Table 4--NOX and VOC Emissions From Closed Facilities in Southeast Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Emission reductions
                      Name                              FID         Date closed  -------------------------------
                                                                                VOC  (tons)     NOX  (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPRO CORPORATION...............................       268165150        06/30/09           21.33            0.00
PHOENIX COLOR CORPORATION.......................       241227910        08/31/11           07.36            0.08
MIDWEST COMPOSITE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.............       268270750        12/31/10           19.26           01.28
ROCK TENN CONVERTING COMPANY....................       241017920        06/30/11           24.35            0.98
CHARTER WIRE DIVISION COMPANY...................       241041130        12/31/09           37.70            0.00
GREDE FOUNDRIES INC.--MILWAUKEE ALLOY...........       241027600        11/30/07           34.90            1.84
MILWAUKEE GRAY IRON, LLC........................       241006370        12/31/08           53.50           31.29
DELPHI ENERGY & CHASSIS SYSTEMS.................       241045750        06/10/10            0.76           19.73
VIASYSTEMS MILWAUKEE, INC.......................       241116700        01/01/09           19.10            3.44
S.C JOHNSON & SON-WAXDALE/POLYMER...............       252236380        04/01/10           11.40            4.26
MOMENTIVE SPECIALITY CHEMICALS, INC. (LAWTER           230089090        03/27/09          276.81            9.81
 INTERNATIONAL, INC.)...........................
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    TOTAL SIP CREDITS FROM SHUTDOWN FACILITIES..  ..............  ..............          506.47           72.71
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, EPA policy allows for substitution between VOC and
NOX emissions in its guidance on reasonable further
progress. This guidance recommends that states assume, as an
approximation, that equivalent percent changes in the area's inventory
for the respective pollutant yield an equivalent change in ozone
levels. For example, decreasing area NOX emissions by 3
percent would have the same effect as decreasing area VOC emissions by
3 percent. Stated another way, if an area has twice as many tons of
NOX emissions as VOC emissions, then 2 tons of
NOX emissions would be assumed to have the same effect on
ozone as 1 ton of VOC emissions. Following this approach WDNR used a 4
to 1 NOX to VOC conversion ratio based on a top-down
evaluation performed by Sonoma Technology, Inc. and outlined in a
report dated May 2011, entitled ``A Top-Down Emissions Inventory
Evaluation for the Upper Midwest'' using 2005 and 2008 emissions
inventories provided by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium.
    Table 5 below summarizes WDNR's I/M emissions make-up
demonstration. The table specifically highlights the annual emissions
shortfall that has taken place since the Wisconsin I/M program changes
occurred and outlines the amount of VOC and NOX emission
credits that are being used to cover the shortfall using the VOC to
NOX substitution approach discussed above. Based on the use
of permanent, enforceable, contemporaneous, surplus emissions
reductions achieved through the shutdown of permitted emissions
sources, EPA believes that the revisions to the Wisconsin I/M program
do not interfere with southeast Wisconsin's ability to demonstrate
compliance with the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.

                                                      Table 5--I/M Emissions Make-Up Demonstration
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            MOVES  emissions  SIP credits from     Trading VOC       Revised SIP         Difference
                                                                shortfall         shutdown        emissions for      redits from    (shortfall--Credits)
                                                           ------------------    facilities       NOX emissions       shutdown               \6\
                           Year                                              ------------------        \5\           facilities    ---------------------
                                                              VOC      NOX                     ------------------------------------
                                                             (tons)   tons)     VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX      VOC      NOX       VOC        NOX
                                                                               (tons)   (tons)   (tons)   (tons)   (tons)   (tons)    (tons)     (tons)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009......................................................   341.18   302.15   455.66    63.60    70.00   280.00   385.66   343.60     -44.47     -41.45
2012......................................................   394.45   306.29   506.47    72.71    70.00   280.00   436.47   352.71     -42.02     -46.42
2015......................................................   262.29   154.04   506.47    72.71    70.00   280.00   436.47   352.71    -174.18    -198.66
2018......................................................   134.04    66.46   506.47    72.71    70.00   280.00   436.47   352.71    -302.43    -286.25

2022......................................................   103.41    45.37   506.47    72.71    70.00   280.00   436.47   352.71    -333.05    -307.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 4:1 VOC to NOX Ratio (i.e., 1 ton of VOC = 4 tons of NOX).
\6\ Negative numbers indicate that the emissions shortfall has been adequately covered.

    EPA also examined whether the amendments to the approved I/M
program in southeast Wisconsin have interfered with attainment of other
air quality standards. Southeast Wisconsin is designated attainment for
all other standards including sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. EPA
has no reason to believe that the amendments to the approved I/M
program in southeast Wisconsin have caused or will cause the area to
become nonattainment for any of these pollutants. In addition, EPA
believes that the amendments to the approved I/M program in southeast
Wisconsin will not interfere with the area's ability to meet any other
CAA requirement.
    Based on the above discussion and the state's 100(l) demonstration,
EPA believes that the changes to the Wisconsin I/M program would not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS in both
the Milwaukee-Racine and Sheboygan County nonattainment areas and would
not interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and
thus, are approvable under CAA section 110(l).

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the Wisconsin ozone
SIP submitted on June 7, 2012, concerning the I/M program in southeast
Wisconsin. EPA finds that the revisions meet all applicable
requirements and will not interfere with reasonable further progress or
attainment of any of the NAAQS.

VI. 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 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 rule 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 oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 12, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2013-09536 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23331-23332]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0694; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-11]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Kissimmee, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Kissimmee, FL, Class D, and Class E
airspace descriptions to update the Kissimmee Gateway Airport name and
geographic coordinates. This action does not change the boundaries,
altitudes, or operating requirements of the Class D and E airspace
areas.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 15, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it amends Class D and E airspace descriptions in Kissimmee, FL, by
updating the airport's name and geographic coordinates.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
Paragraphs 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the
current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective
September 15, 2022. These updates would subsequently be published in
the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is
publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air
traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Class D airspace and
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for
Kissimmee Gateway Airport (formerly Lakeland Kissimmee Municipal
Airport), Kissimmee, FL, by updating this airport's name and geographic
coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database. This action also
replaces the terms Notice to Airmen with Notice to Air Missions and
Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement in the Class D
airspace description. This action does not affect the boundaries,
altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace. Therefore, notice
and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a.
    This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Kissimmee, FL [Amended]

Kissimmee Gateway Airport, FL
    (Lat 28[deg]17'23'' N, long. 81[deg]26'13'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not
including 1,600 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of the Kissimmee
Gateway Airport, excluding that portion within the Orlando
International Airport, FL, Class B airspace area. This Class D
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Orlando, FL [Amended]

Orlando Executive Airport, FL
    (Lat 28[deg]32'44'' N, long. 81[deg]19'59'' W)
Orlando VORTAC
    (Lat 28[deg]32'34'' N, long. 81[deg]20'06'' W)
Orlando International Airport
    (Lat 28[deg]25'46'' N, long. 81[deg]18'32'' W)
Kissimmee Gateway Airport
    (Lat 28[deg]17'23'' N, long. 81[deg]26'13'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Orlando Executive Airport, and within 3.1-
miles each side of Orlando VORTAC 067[deg] radial extending from the
7-mile radius to 9.5-miles northeast of the VORTAC, and within a 7-
mile radius of Orlando International Airport, and within 3 miles
each side of Orlando VORTAC 176[deg] radial extending from the 7-
mile radius to 19 miles south of the VORTAC, and within a 7-mile
radius of Kissimmee Gateway Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 10, 2023.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-07842 Filed 4-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 41733-41735]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-406-000]

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

July 23, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Monroe Gas Storage Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Monroe Gas
Storage Company, LLC (MGSC) in Monroe County, Mississippi and Lamar
County, Alabama.\1\ MGSC proposes to convert an existing, but depleted,
natural gas well field, the Four Mile Creek Field originally developed
by Grace Petroleum, to natural gas storage service in Monroe County,
Mississippi. The EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 26, 2007, MGSC filed its application with the
Commission under section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 United
States Code section 717(b)(a), and Parts 157 and 284 of the
Commission's regulations. The Commission filed its notice of
application on July 3, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Summary of the Proposed Project

    MGSC proposes to expand the capacity of its natural gas facilities
in Mississippi and Alabama to provide approximately 12.0 billion cubic
feet of working gas capacity, for the purpose of receiving, injecting,
withdrawing and redelivering natural gas to its system. MGSC seeks
authority to:
     Develop nine new natural gas injection/withdrawal wells;
     Convert five existing natural gas production wells to
observation wells;
     Install approximately 2.0 miles of gathering pipelines of
12- and 18-inch diameters;
     Build an integrated compressor station/control facility
consisting of three 4,735 brake horsepower (bhp) natural gas fueled
engines driving reciprocating compressors equipped with air intake
filters/silencers, critical grade exhaust silencer/catalyst, a glycol

dehydration system, control and safety systems, and associated
facilities;
     Install approximately 5.7 miles of 24-inch diameter
lateral pipeline connecting the proposed compressor station with the
Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (TETCO) pipeline (TETCO
lateral);
     Install approximately 17.2 miles of 24-inch diameter
lateral pipeline connecting the compressor station with the Tennessee
Gas Pipeline Company (TGP) pipeline (TGP lateral), including two
isolation block valves within the pipeline right-of-way; and
     Build two metering and regulation stations, one at each
interconnection point of the TETCO and TGP laterals with the TETCO and
TGP pipeline systems.
    MGSC states that the only nonjurisdictional facility associated
with the Monroe Gas Storage Project consists of the local electric
distribution line that will supply power to the facility. This facility
would be constructed and operated by local electric utility companies.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would require about 262.8
acres of land. Following construction, about 149.1 acres would be
maintained as new aboveground facility sites or pipeline right-of-way.
MGSC has proposed to locate the storage facilities within a depleted
natural gas reservoir originally developed by Grace Petroleum. Land
requirements for meter stations would be purchased, and the remainder
of pipeline rights-of-way would be acquired by easement.

The EA Process

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

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

 Geology and Soils
 Land Use
 Water Resources, Fisheries, and Wetlands
 Cultural Resources
 Vegetation and Wildlife
 Threatened and Endangered Species
 Air Quality and Noise

    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies, public
interest groups, interested individuals, affected landowners,
newspapers, libraries, and the Commission's official service list for
this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA
is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make
our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section below.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and
the environmental information provided by MGSC. This preliminary list
of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis.
     A total of 118.7 acres of forested land would be cleared
during construction.
     Air and noise quality may be affected by added facilities.
     Aboveground facilities would be located in wetlands.
    Also, we have made a preliminary decision to not address the
impacts of the nonjurisdictional facility. We will briefly describe its
location and summarize the status of state and local environmental
reviews in the EA.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commenter, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative
locations), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The
more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please
carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are
received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of OEP/
DG2E, Gas Branch 3.
     Reference Docket No. CP07-406-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before August 24, 2007.
    We will include all comments that we receive within a reasonable
time frame in our environmental analysis of this project. However, the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any comments or
interventions or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the

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

Site Visit

    On August 10, 2007, the OEP staff will conduct a site visit of the
planned MGSC Gas Storage Project. We will view the proposed facility
locations and pipeline route. Examination will be by automobile and on
foot. Representatives of MGSC will be accompanying the OEP staff.
    All interested parties may attend. Those planning to attend must
provide

their own transportation and should meet at 9 a.m. (CST) at the Amory
City Hall, 109 South Front Street, Amory, MS on August 10, 2007.
    For additional information, please contact the Commission's Office
of External Affairs at 1-866-208-FERC (3372).

Becoming an Intervenor

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

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

Environmental Mailing List

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

Additional Information

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

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

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

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

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-14743 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P