Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles certified to Tier-2 Standards

                       Analysis of Data from EPA Phase 3

                                (EPAct/V2/E-89)

                                 Appendix I.4o
                              Final Model Fitting
                             Methane (CH4) (Bag 3)

No. Observations:	893
No. Vehicles:		  14		(drop Corolla)
No. censored measurements:		0
No. missing measurements:		0
No. measurements removed:		0
Model Type:		Mixed model

I.4o.1   Model fitting with respect to the 11-term design model.
Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy.

Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

Design Model (11-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

CH4 (Bag 3):  Number of terms (p), Goodness-of-fit (BIC) and terms included in the 35 best-fitting candidate models (out of a total of 294 possible models with hierarchy).  (Terms included in models ranked 1-7 comprise the "superset" for final model-fitting).

      Models fit for CH4 (Bag 3): (all models include an intercept term).
Model Term
                                   Notation
                                     Model

                                   Superset
                                    SM2[1]
                                      SM3
                                      SM4
                                     etOH
Ze
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                     Arom
Za
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      RVP
Zr
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

                                      T50
Z5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T90
Z9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                 etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x
                                 etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  etOH x RVP
ZZer
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                      ---
                                  etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                      ●
                                      x

[1] Represents "Superset minus 1," etc.

 CH4 (Bag 3): Model fitting history, starting with the 10-term superset model.
                                Fit Parameters

                             Test with respect to
                                Previous Model
Model
                                                                              p
-2lnL
BIC[1]

                                                                           Dev.
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]
Superset
                                                                             11
-380.510
-346.200

SM2[2]
                                                                              9
-379.936
-350.907

                                                                          0.576
                                                                              2
                                                                          0.750
SM3
                                                                              8
-378.619
-352.229

                                                                          1.317
                                                                              1
                                                                          0.251
SM4[2]
                                                                              7
-376.814
-353.062

                                                                          1.805
                                                                              1
                                                                          0.179

[1] A lower value indicates a better fit.
[2] Best fit with respect to the 11-term design model.

CH4 (Bag 3): Coefficients and Tests of Effect for the Superset and Reduced Models, with respect to the 11-term design model.

I.4o.2	Model Fitting with respect to the 16-term extended Model.
Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for all possible models respecting hierarchy.

Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for subset of models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

Extended Model (16-terms):  Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) vs. number of terms in model (p) for subset of models respecting hierarchy (CLOSEUP of previous figure).

CH4 (Bag 3):  Number of terms (p), Goodness-of-fit (BIC) and terms included in the 35 best-fitting candidate models (out of a total of 2,964 possible models with hierarchy).  (Terms included in models ranked 1-5 comprise the "superset" for final model-fitting).

NOTE: Model fitting with respect to the 16-term extended model gives identical results to those obtained for the 11-term design model, as presented above.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58057-58059]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0153]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Renewal of an Approved
Information Collection: Truck and Bus Maintenance Requirements and
Their Impact on Safety

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval
to renew an ICR titled, ``Truck and Bus Maintenance Requirements and
Their Impact on Safety'' will allow for a study that focuses on vehicle
maintenance and aims to determine the impact of vehicle maintenance
requirements on overall motor carrier safety. This information
collection supports the DOT Strategic Goal of Safety.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before September
1, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2023-0153 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Dockets Operations, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building,
Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Lukuc, Program Manager,
Technology Division, DOT, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 385-238;
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Instructions

    All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number. For
detailed instructions on submitting comments, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2023-0153), indicate the specific section of this
document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your
submission. If you want us to notify you that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting comments online.
    To submit your comment online, go to https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2023-0153/document, click on this notice, click
``Comment,'' and type your comment into the text box on the following
screen.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing.
    Comments received after the comment closing date will be included
in the docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.

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.

Background

    FMCSA's core mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities
involving large trucks and buses. To aid in accomplishing this, the
Agency uses the Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) enforcement
program to prioritize and target interventions of those motor carriers
who are most likely to be involved in a future crash. As part of the
CSA program, the Agency deploys the Safety Measurement System (SMS).
SMS uses inspection, crash, and investigation data captured in the
Motor Carrier Management Information System to calculate a percentile
for each motor carrier. A motor carrier's SMS percentile is based on
its past compliance with a complete range of safety-based regulations
(such as driver safety, hours of service, driver fitness, and vehicle
maintenance, among others). The survey described in this notice focuses
on the vehicle maintenance component of those safety regulations. The
study goal is to determine what improvements, ranging from better
compliance interventions to better vehicle maintenance requirements,
would enhance motor carrier safety.
    In 2014, the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
conducted a study to assess the effectiveness of SMS in identifying the
highest risk motor carriers to be targeted for interventions. One
finding from the study was that motor carriers targeted for
intervention due to ``vehicle maintenance'' issues (i.e., violations)
had a 65 percent higher crash rate compared to the national average.
These violations are based on Federal and state inspections of
components critical to the safe operation of the vehicle. It is
important to recognize that proper and regular preventative maintenance
(i.e., systematic maintenance programs) among carriers--rather than
Federal and State inspections, which are by nature limited to the most
visible or obvious safety-related components--should be the primary
activity applied to ensure safe equipment operation. While these
initial findings are important, they raise additional questions. One
such question is prompted by the stipulation in 49 CFR 396.3(a), which
states that every carrier must have a program to ``systematically
inspect, repair, and maintain, or cause to be systematically inspected,
repaired, and maintained, all motor vehicles and intermodal equipment
subject to its control.'' Though this regulation provides some
direction, there is no supporting definition of the word systematic,
and because this term is subjective, it is likely to vary from one
carrier to another. The lack of specificity regarding standard
intervals for preventative maintenance makes it difficult for Federal
and State personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of and compliance
with a carrier's maintenance program. Furthermore, the lack of
specificity may make it difficult for carriers to ascertain and
therefore comply with the regulation's intent.
    The current research effort, augmented by the proposed survey, is
necessary to improve FMCSA's understanding of the safety impact of
preventative vehicle maintenance and to clarify the requirements of
Sec.  396.3(a). The study objectives are as follows:
    1. Develop an operational definition of systematic maintenance.
    2. Evaluate whether current regulations and the intervention
process could be modified to improve compliance with vehicle
maintenance requirements. Examples of such requirements are as follows:
(i) Preventative maintenance intervals, (ii) preventative maintenance
inspections with adequately trained/equipped mechanics, and (iii)
adequacy of motor carriers' maintenance facilities. [However, the
results of the survey will be used only to explore what areas of
rulemaking and/or other areas, such as policy guidance and training,
might be useful in the future; the results of the survey will not be
used for rulemaking, per se.]
    3. Gather information to assist in establishing minimum standards
for inspection intervals, mechanic qualifications and training, and
certification of maintenance facilities.
    FMCSA is authorized to conduct this research under 49 U.S.C. 31108,
Motor Carrier Research and Technology Programs. Under section
31108(a)(3)(C), FMCSA may fund research, development, and technology
projects that improve the safety and efficiency of commercial motor
vehicle operations through technological innovation and improvement.
This information collection supports the DOT strategic goal of Safety.

    Under contract to FMCSA, the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
(VTTI) at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University will
use online surveys to obtain the data required to address the study
objectives. The information collection will be administered in two
phases:
    Phase I: Online Recruitment Survey. This voluntary, seven-question
survey will screen carriers and verify their eligibility for Phase II
participation. To be eligible for Phase II participation, carriers must
fall into one of two groups: (a) The Recommended Practices (RP) Group,
which includes carriers with the lowest Vehicle Maintenance and Crash
Indicator Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASIC)
percentiles (i.e., less than or equal to the 33rd percentile); or (b)
the Intervention Effects (IE) Group, which includes carriers that have
experienced Federal or State interventions in the last 24 months due to
vehicle maintenance violations. The BASICs are Unsafe Driving, Crash
Indicator, Hours-of-Service (HOS) compliance, Vehicle Maintenance,
Controlled Substances/Alcohol, Hazardous Materials (HM) Compliance, and
Driver Fitness. More information on the SMS methodology can be found at
https://csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/Documents/SMSMethodology.pdf.
    Phase II: Carrier Maintenance Management Survey. This voluntary,
108-question survey will include questions about demographics;
maintenance practices, intervals, personnel, and facilities; and State
and Federal inspections, among other things. The Phase II survey will
employ branch logic; as such, carriers will be prompted to complete
different sections based on their survey group (and for one section,
carrier size). Consequently, no participating carrier will be asked to
complete all 108 questions.
    In the Phase II survey, carriers (of all sizes) in the RP Group
will be asked to provide additional information about maintenance
personnel and facilities (e.g., mechanic training levels, tools
required for adequate inspection, and certification of facilities) and
vehicle maintenance issues that may impact safety. Information from the
RP Group will seek to address Objective 1, relating to development of
an operational definition of systematic maintenance, Objective 2, and
Objective 3, relating to establishment of minimum standards for
inspection intervals, mechanic qualifications and training, and
certification of maintenance facilities.
    Carriers in the IE Group will be asked to complete the section on
intervention effects, which includes questions about the status of
active interventions or investigations; results of closed interventions
or investigations; interactions with State versus Federal agencies;
intervention activities experienced; the accuracy of violations leading
to interventions; actions taken in response to interventions; changes
in carrier vehicle maintenance practices as a result of an
intervention; significant benefits of interventions; and ways the
intervention process could be improved. Information provided by the IE
Group will address the portion of Objective 2 regarding sufficiency of
regulations and where interventions need to be improved to facilitate
complying with these regulations.
    Survey responses will be summarized and reported using plots,
tables, content analysis, and calculated summary statistics. Plots and
tables will provide a visual comparison of multiple choice and checkbox
survey responses for successful carriers (i.e., carriers in the RP
Group) and those receiving interventions in the last 24 months (i.e.,
carriers in the IE Group). These methods will also allow researchers to
summarize responses by carrier operation type (i.e., truck or bus) and
size. Bar charts will be used to plot responses to many survey
questions. Some survey responses may be summarized with tables with
rows for each of the carrier operation types (truck or bus) and each
carrier-size subgroup. To explore and summarize responses to open-ended
survey questions, researchers will use content analysis methods. An
illustration of an open-ended question in the survey is ``List examples
of critical safety-related maintenance activities for trailer vehicle
milestones.'' The goal of content analysis of open-ended questions will
be to identify common answers.
    The results of this information collection will be documented in a
technical report to be delivered to and published by FMCSA. In
addition, the results will be used to create a ``recommended best
practices'' report that will outline minimum standards for inspection
intervals, mechanic qualifications and training, and certification of
maintenance facilities. Finally, VTTI is required under the contract
with FMCSA to compile and analyze the collected information and develop
a public-use data set.
    If this data collection does not take place, the truck and bus
industry would continue to operate with the uncertainty of what a
``systematic maintenance'' program, as currently worded in Sec.
396.3(a), consists of. This term's ambiguous definition makes it
difficult for Federal and State inspectors to evaluate the
effectiveness of a carrier's maintenance program or its compliance with
this provision. Furthermore, this uncertainty may make it difficult for
carriers to ascertain and therefore comply with the regulation's
intent.
    Title: Truck and Bus Maintenance Requirements and Their Impact on
Safety.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0069.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved ICR.
    Respondents: Freight motor carriers and passenger carriers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 578 respondents [578 respondents
will complete the Online Recruitment Survey. Of those 578 respondents,
289 will also complete the Carrier Maintenance Manager Survey].
    Estimated Time per Response: Varies [Online Recruitment Survey: 5
minutes. Carrier Maintenance Manager Survey: 45 minutes.]
    Expiration Date: November 30, 2023.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 265 hours [Online Recruitment
Survey: 578 respondents x (5 minutes / 60 minutes) = 48 hours; Carrier
Maintenance Manager Survey: 289 respondents x (45 minutes / 60 minutes)
= 217 hours].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The Agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this ICR.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Thomas P. Keane,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2023-18236 Filed 8-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

MEMORANDUM

DATE:		February 15, 2010

SUBJECT:	MACT Floor and MACT Determination for Existing Stationary
Non-Emergency CI RICE Greater Than or Equal to 100 HP Located at Major
Sources

FROM:	Bradley Nelson and Tanya Parise, EC/R, Inc.

TO:		Melanie King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG

1.0	PURPOSE

The purpose of this memorandum is to document the analysis of the
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor and MACT for existing
stationary non-emergency compression ignition (CI) reciprocating
internal combustion engines (RICE) greater than or equal to 100
horsepower (HP) located at major sources that are subject to the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).

The MACT analysis for existing stationary non-emergency CI engines less
than 100 HP and existing stationary emergency and black start CI engines
at major sources, and the Generally Achievable Control Technology
analysis for existing stationary CI engines located at area sources of
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions are presented in a separate
memorandum titled “MACT Floor Determination for Existing Stationary
Non-Emergency CI RICE Less Than 100 HP and Existing Stationary Emergency
CI RICE Located at Major Sources and GACT for Existing Stationary CI
RICE Located at Area Sources,” which is available in the rulemaking
docket (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708).  A “major source” means
generally any stationary source or group of stationary sources located
within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the
potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per
year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more
of any combination of HAP.

2.0	INTRODUCTION

The EPA has developed a regulation affecting existing stationary CI RICE
located at major sources that will address toxic air emissions from
these engines.  The regulation was developed following criteria set
forth under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The MACT floor for
existing sources must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing
sources for which the Administrator has emissions information.  The MACT
standards must be no less stringent than the MACT floor.  EPA must also
determine whether to control emissions “beyond-the-floor,” after
considering the costs, non-air quality health and environmental impacts,
and energy requirements of such more stringent control.  The EPA has
previously issued a similar regulation affecting existing and new
stationary RICE greater than 500 HP at major sources, which was
promulgated in 2004 and for new stationary RICE less than or equal to
500 HP at major sources, which was promulgated in 2008.

	Section 112 of the CAA allows the EPA to establish subcategories among
a group of sources.  A complete discussion of the subcategory selection
is presented in a separate memorandum which can also be found in the
rulemaking docket.

3.0	MACT FLOOR AND MACT DETERMINATION

General Approach

The MACT floor for existing stationary RICE must be no less stringent
than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12
percent of existing sources for which the Administrator has emissions
information.  In the proposed rule, EPA established the MACT floor for
each subcategory of stationary existing CI engines using the emissions
data that EPA had for stationary CI engines, which consisted of testing
conducted by EPA and industry at Colorado State University (CSU) on a
1,000 HP CI engine.  During the comment period, EPA received five
additional test reports that included emission results for 13 existing
stationary CI engines ranging from 160 HP to 3,570 HP.  These new test
data along with the test data from the CSU testing were used to
determine the MACT floor for each of the subcategories.  A summary of
the average test results for each of the engines is presented in
Appendix A.  The test reports for the test data used to determine the
MACT floor are provided in the Docket as Document ID Nos.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0018 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-0272 through 0275.

EPA has previously conducted an analysis for the RICE NESHAP for engines
greater than 500 HP at major sources, which investigated whether carbon
monoxide (CO) could be used as a surrogate for HAP from stationary
engines.  The conclusion of the analysis was that CO is a reasonable
surrogate for formaldehyde for CI engines, and that formaldehyde is a
reasonable surrogate for HAP for CI engines.  To determine the MACT
floor for each of the subcategories, EPA used the following methodology:
 (1) we ranked the average emissions from each engine from lowest to
highest; (2) we determined the units in the MACT floor; (3) we assessed
variability.  The MACT floor and MACT determination for each subcategory
is described below and is summarized in Table 1.  A summary of the test
data that was used to set the MACT floor is presented in Appendix B.

Table 1.  Summary of Determination for

≥100 HP

Located at Major Sources

Subcategory	MACT Floor	MACT

Non-Emergency CI 100≤HP≤300	230 ppmvd CO @15% O2	230 ppmvd CO @15%
O2

Non-Emergency CI 300<HP≤500	137 ppmvd CO @15% O2	49 ppmvd CO @15% O2

or

70% CO reduction

Non-Emergency CI

>500 HP	38 ppmvd CO @15% O2	23 ppmvd CO @15% O2

or

70% CO reduction

Non-Emergency CI 100≤HP≤300

EPA has test data for two engines in this subcategory; therefore, the
best performing 12 percent of sources in this subcategory is represented
by a single engine.  The MACT floor engine was tested for three runs.
To account for variability, EPA used the highest individual run to
establish the MACT floor.  As shown in Appendix B, the resulting MACT
floor for non-emergency CI engines between 100 and 300 HP is 230 parts
per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd) of CO at 15 percent oxygen
(O2).

We also evaluated whether to go beyond-the-floor.  Specifically, EPA
considered additional emission controls that would further reduce HAP
emissions.  One control that we considered for reducing HAP is a diesel
oxidation catalyst (DOC).  The DOC technology is capable of reducing HAP
emissions by 70 percent or more.  The DOC technology also reduces
emissions of CO by 70 percent or more, as well as particulate matter
(PM) emissions.  Achievable reductions of PM are on the order of 30
percent for the DOC.

EPA also considered the use of open crankcase ventilation (OCV) or
closed crankcase ventilation (CCV) systems to further reduce emissions
of metallic HAP under section 112(d)(2)(B) and (C), as a measure that
encloses systems to eliminate emissions or collects, captures or treats
such pollutants.  EPA also notes that it does not believe it would be
feasible at this time to prescribe an emission standard for metallic
HAP.  It is believed that combustion gases and oil mist that are vented
from the engine crankcase are a substantial source of any metallic HAP
emissions from stationary CI engines.  Most existing stationary CI
engines have open crankcases that vent the crankcase emissions directly
to the atmosphere.  It would not be practicable to measure the metallic
HAP emissions since the crankcase is open directly to the atmosphere
rather than vented to the engine exhaust.  Capturing these emissions
using EPA Method 29 would be difficult due to the sporadic flowrate of
the blow-by gases, making isokinetic sampling of the crankcase exhaust
difficult.  In addition, testing for metallic HAP is at least
$15,000-$20,000 per engine, and the emission levels from stationary CI
engines are likely to be below method detection limits, so current test
methods may not be able to accurately measure such emissions.
Consequently, it would be infeasible to prescribe a numerical emission
standard for metallic HAP for existing stationary CI engines.
Therefore, the use of OCV or CCV systems would also be justified under
section 112(d)(2)(D) as a design, equipment or work practice.  EPA
believes that a standard that requires the use of OCV or CCV systems
would be the most appropriate method for further reducing metallic HAP
emissions for existing stationary CI engines.  For the purpose of this
analysis, EPA used OCV, rather than CCV as the emission control we would
expect sources to use; while CCV systems that prevent the crankcase
emissions from being emitted to the atmosphere are also an option for
reducing crankcase emissions, EPA does not believe that it is feasible
to retrofit all existing stationary CI engines with CCV systems due to
feasibility concerns.  This was discussed in a meeting between EPA and
the Engine Manufacturers Association and in a letter from EMA to EPA
(see “Summary of the November 19, 2009 Teleconference with the Engine
Manufacturers Association and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to Discuss Crankcase Emissions from Stationary Compression Ignition
Engines”  and EMA’s November 19, 2009 letter to EMA titled “EMA
Response to Question Regarding Crankcase Emission Controls” both
available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708)).

HP≤500

EPA has test data for two engines in this subcategory.  The average of
the top 12 percent of existing sources is therefore based on data from
one engine.  In order to account for emissions variability, the highest
test run for the engine was determined to be the MACT floor.  As shown
in Appendix B, the MACT floor for CI non-emergency stationary RICE
between 300 HP and 500 HP is 137 ppmvd of CO at 15 percent O2.

We also evaluated whether to go beyond-the-floor for this subcategory.
Specifically, EPA considered additional emission controls to further
reduce HAP emissions.  EPA considered the use of DOC systems in
conjunction with OCV systems.  Stationary existing CI engines were
largely uncontrolled at the Federal level prior to the promulgation of
EPA’s emission standards for stationary CI engines in 2004, which
affected engines constructed beginning in 2002.  Non-emergency CI
engines are estimated to emit 90 percent of total combined PM and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions from all existing stationary CI engines,
with emergency engines emitting the remaining 10 percent.  Of the
non-emergency CI engines, about 50,000 non-emergency engines rated 300
HP or higher were built prior to 2002, which is about 29 percent of the
existing population of non-emergency stationary CI engines.  These
50,000 non-emergency CI engines emit approximately 72 percent of the
total HAP emissions, 66 percent of the total PM emissions, and 62
percent of the total NOX emissions from existing non-emergency
stationary CI engines.  This information is based on data from the Power
Systems Research Database that was presented in Tables 1-4 of EPA’s
January 24, 2008 ANPRM for stationary CI engines emission standards (73
FR 4136).  For these reasons, EPA concluded that it can achieve the
highest level of emission reduction relative to cost, while requiring
controls where appropriate, by requiring more stringent emission
standards on non-emergency stationary CI engines with a power rating
greater than 300 HP.

EPA evaluated the cost of these systems compared to the emission
reductions that would be achieved by the use of DOC/OCV for engines in
this subcategory and determined that the costs were reasonable when
compared to the amount of emission reductions that would be achieved
through the use of these controls.  For example, the cost per ton of HAP
reduced for non-emergency CI engines between 300 HP and 500 HP is about
$170,000.  Again, the cost per ton is based on reducing HAP emissions by
70 percent from uncontrolled levels.  For a non-emergency 400 HP CI
engine this would equate to an emission reduction of approximately 30
lb/yr; twice that of a 200 HP engine.  For information on the cost per
ton of HAP reduced, please refer to the memorandum entitled “Cost per
Ton of HAP Reduced for Existing Stationary CI RICE” in the rulemaking
docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708).

To determine MACT for non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP and
less than or equal to 500 HP, EPA reviewed the test data for CI engines
greater than 300 HP and less than or equal to 500 HP and selected the
highest CO test run for the two engines in that range.  Then, EPA
applied a control efficiency of 70 percent to that CO concentration
level.  The 70 percent reduction efficiency for DOC represents the
lowest reduction in CO from a DOC that was measured during EPA’s
testing of a stationary diesel engine at CSU; the CO reduction measured
during the CSU testing ranged from 70 to 84 percent.  By selecting the
highest CO test run and the lowest reduction percentage, EPA has
accounted for emissions variability in the subcategory while ensuring
that emission levels will be below the MACT floor level after accounting
for emission controls.  Consequently, EPA determined that MACT for HAP
for non-emergency CI engines greater than 300 HP and less than or equal
to 500 HP is 49 ppmvd of CO at 15 percent O2, or 70 percent CO
efficiency.  EPA has also determined that it would be appropriate to
require the use of ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel for these
engines.  The use of ULSD is necessary due to concerns about DOCs
simultaneously oxidizing SO2 to form sulfate particulate. A limit on the
diesel fuel sulfur level of 15 ppm will reduce the potential for
increased sulfate emissions from diesel engines equipped with DOCs. The
limit on fuel sulfur will also improve the efficiency of the DOC.

In order to further reduce metallic HAP emissions, EPA believes it is
appropriate establish a separate requirement for metallic HAP emissions
from the crankcase.  As discussed above, it is not possible to set a
numerical emission standard for metallic HAP.  To reduce emissions of
metallic HAP, an OCV filtration system was considered.  The OCV system
captures blow-by emissions from the pistons, which include both oil mist
and worn metal from the combustion cylinders, and reduces metallic HAP
emissions from the engine.  Closed crankcase ventilation (CCV) systems
that prevent the crankcase emissions from being emitted to the
atmosphere are also an option for reducing crankcase emissions; however
EPA believes that it may not be feasible for some existing stationary CI
engines to retrofit with CCV systems (see “Summary of the November 19,
2009 Teleconference with the Engine Manufacturers Association and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to Discuss Crankcase Emissions from
Stationary Compression Ignition Engines” and EMA’s November 19, 2009
letter to EMA titled “EMA Response to Question Regarding Crankcase
Emission Controls” both available in the docket
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708)).  Therefore, EPA believes it is appropriate to
provide sources the option to choose either OCV or CCV systems and has
specified that non-emergency CI engines between 300 HP and 500 HP
located at major sources must either:  1) install a closed crankcase
ventilation system that prevents crankcase emissions from being emitted
to the atmosphere, or 2) install an open crankcase filtration emission
control system that reduces the crankcase emissions by filtering the
exhaust stream to remove oil mist, particulates, and metals.

Of further consideration are the co-benefits that would be achieved by
requiring the use of the DOC/OCV option.  The control technology will
reduce other pollutants such as CO and PM, which are of significant
health concern.  In addition, the requirement will also reduce the
emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), because this control option requires
the use of ULSD fuel.  (Note, however that EPA has not quantified the
SO2 emission reductions because EPA is unable to estimate the percentage
of engines that may switch to ULSD in the absence of this rule).   For
instance, the cost per ton of PM reduced for non-emergency CI engines
between 300 HP and 500 HP is around $61,000 and the cost per ton for SO2
is about $32,000.  The cost per ton for PM is based on reducing PM
emissions by 30 percent from uncontrolled levels, which would mean an
emission reduction of more than 80 lb/yr of PM from a 400 HP engine.  It
is estimated that the benefits per ton are $210,000 (Pope, 7%) and
$500,000 (Laden, 7%) for PM2.5 for existing stationary CI engines at
major sources.  It is clear that the overall benefits significantly
outweigh the costs.  Further information on the monetized benefits can
be found in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final rule, which is
available from the rulemaking docket.  The total reductions of HAP and
other pollutants from this regulation are presented in the memorandum
titled “Impacts Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary CI
RICE,” available from the rulemaking docket.

Non-Emergency CI >500 HP

EPA has test data for eight engines in this subcategory.  The average of
the top 12 percent is therefore based on data for one engine.  To
determine the MACT floor for this subcategory, EPA selected the highest
test run for the MACT floor engine in order to account for emissions
variability.  As shown in Appendix B, the MACT floor for CI
non-emergency stationary RICE greater than 500 HP is 38 ppmvd of CO at
15 percent O2.

We also evaluated whether to go beyond-the-floor for this subcategory.
Specifically, EPA considered DOC/OCV.  After evaluating the cost of
these controls and the emission reductions that can be achieved for
engines in this subcategory, EPA believes that requiring above-the-floor
levels that are based on DOC/OCV control is appropriate for
non-emergency CI engines greater than 500 HP.  For example, the cost per
ton of HAP reduced for non-emergency CI engines above 500 HP is about
$162,000 or less.  Based on reducing HAP emissions by 70 percent from
uncontrolled levels, annual emission reduction would be approximately 45
lb/yr per engine for a 600 HP engine.

To determine the above-the-floor emission limitation for non-emergency
CI engines greater than 500 HP, EPA reviewed the test data for CI
engines greater than 500 HP.  EPA applied a control efficiency of 70
percent to the CO concentration level that represented the highest CO
concentration value taken from the CSU-Engines & Energy Conservation
Laboratory data, which tested over a wide range of operating loads.  The
CO reduction measured during the CSU testing ranged from 70 to 84
percent; EPA selected the lowest percent reduction that was measured
during the testing in order to account for emissions variability.  As a
result, EPA determined that MACT for HAP emissions for non-emergency CI
engines greater than 500 HP is 23 ppmvd of CO at 15 percent O2 or 70
percent CO efficiency.

To further address metallic HAP emissions from stationary non-emergency
CI engines greater than 500 HP, EPA is requiring that these sources
either: 1) install a closed crankcase ventilation system that prevents
crankcase emissions from being emitted to the atmosphere, or 2) install
an open crankcase filtration emission control system that reduces the
crankcase emissions by filtering the exhaust stream to remove oil mist,
particulates, and metals.

Of further consideration are the co-benefits that would be achieved by
requiring the use of the DOC/OCV option.  The control technology will
reduce other pollutants such as CO and PM, which are of significant
health concern.  In addition, the requirement will also reduce the
emissions of SO2, because this control option requires the use of ULSD
fuel.  (Note, however that EPA has not quantified the SO2 emission
reductions because EPA is unable to estimate the percentage of engines
that may switch to ULSD in the absence of this rule).  The cost per ton
of PM reduced for non-emergency CI engines above 500 HP is less than
$58,000.  The cost per ton of VOC is $7,000 or below for non-emergency
engines above 500 HP.  Again, the cost per ton for PM is based on
reducing PM emissions by 30 percent from uncontrolled levels, which
would mean an emission reduction of more than 120 lb/yr of PM from a 600
HP engine.  Again, the total benefits per ton for existing stationary CI
engines at major sources, which for PM2.5 are $210,000 (Pope, 7%) and
$500,000 (Laden, 7%) show that overall benefits significantly outweigh
the costs.  Further information on the monetized benefits can be found
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the final rule, which is available
from the rulemaking docket.  The total HAP and other pollutant
reductions from this regulation are presented in the memorandum titled
“Impacts Associated with NESHAP for Existing Stationary CI RICE,”
available from the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708).

Appendix A

Existing Stationary CI Engine Test Data Summary

	Test Date	Engine Number	Engine Size (HP)	Test Method Used	CO
Concentration (ppmvd @ 15% O2)	Comments

Test Facility

	Average 	Run 1	Run 2	Run 3

	Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District	1/22/2009	East
Crane 3	160	CARB 100	479.8	496.4	497.5	445.4

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District	1/22/2009	West Crane
1	160	CARB 100	222.9	221.3	217.5	229.9

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District	1/20/2009	East Crane
1	450	CARB 100	129.6	124.2	127.5	137.2

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District	1/21/2009	East Crane
2	450	CARB 100	154.4	140.3	160.2	162.7

Precision Power	7/27/2005	Engine 1	550	EPA Method 10	45.6	46.6	45.0	45.1
100% load

Precision Power	7/29/2005	Engine 2	550	EPA Method 10	90.9	93.5	90.4	88.8
25% load

Precision Power	7/29/2005	Engine 2	550	EPA Method 10	57.7	56.6	58.8	57.5
50% load

Precision Power	7/29/2005	Engine 2	550	EPA Method 10	41.6	42.5	41.0	41.4
75% load

Precision Power	7/27/2005	Engine 2	550	EPA Method 10	23.5	23.7	23.7	23.0
100% load

Precision Power	7/28/2005	Engine 3	550	EPA Method 10	82.8	62.0	93.5	92.9
25% load, Arctic fuel

Precision Power	7/28/2005	Engine 3	550	EPA Method 10	59.9	59.3	58.3	62.3
50% load, Arctic fuel

Precision Power	7/28/2005	Engine 3	550	EPA Method 10	39.5	40.8	39.7	37.8
75% load, Arctic fuel

Precision Power	7/28/2005	Engine 3	550	EPA Method 10	42.8	41.6	44.3	42.4
100% load, Arctic fuel

Precision Power	7/26/2005	Engine 3	550	EPA Method 10	42.3	41.9	43.7	41.2
100% load

Precision Power	7/26/2005	Engine 4	550	EPA Method 10	28.9	25.6	23.2	38.0
100% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	9/2/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	76.8	76.8	 	 	70% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	9/1/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	44.1	44.1	 	 	70% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	8/31/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	43.5	43.5	 	 	100% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	8/31/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	41.6	41.6	 	 	100% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	9/1/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	42.7	42.7	 	 	100% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	8/31/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	45.2	45.2	 	 	100% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	8/31/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	44.1	44.1	 	 	100% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	9/1/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	41.6	41.6	 	 	100% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	9/1/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	76.2	76.2	 	 	70% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	8/31/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	39.8	39.8	 	 	100% load

Badami Development Facility	6/26/2003	Generator 2	1680	EPA Method 10
327.1	330.3	330.1	320.8	75% load

Badami Development Facility	6/26/2003	Generator 2	1680	EPA Method 10
265.4	267.2	263.7	265.1	100% load

Badami Development Facility	6/26/2003	Generator 2	1680	EPA Method 10
196.9	182	200	209	50% load

Badami Development Facility	6/25/2003	Generator 2	1680	EPA Method 10
77.7	77.8	74.9	80.3	25% load

Northstar Development Project - BP	7/8/2004	Engine 6	3570	EPA Method 10
69.4	69.2	69.2	69.9	Low load

Northstar Development Project - BP	7/8/2004	Engine 6	3570	EPA Method 10
54.9	55.8	54.2	54.6	High load

Northstar Development Project - BP	7/9/2004	Engine 6	3570	EPA Method 10
55.5	56.7	54.9	54.8	Mid load

Northstar Development Project - BP	7/9/2004	Engine 7	3570	EPA Method 10
142.9	142.9

	Mid load

Northstar Development Project - BP	7/9/2004	Engine 7	3570	EPA Method 10
131.1	126.5	132.1	134.8	High load

Northstar Development Project - BP	7/9/2004	Engine 7	3570	EPA Method 10
127.8	127.8	 	 	Low load

Appendix B

MACT Floor Summary

Test Facility	Test Date	Engine Number	Engine Size (HP)	Test Method Used
Highest CO run (ppmvd @ 15% O2)	Average CO Concentration (ppmvd @ 15%
O2)	Comments

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District	1/22/2009	West Crane
1	160	CARB 100	229.9	222.9

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District	1/22/2009	East Crane
3	160	CARB 100	 	479.8

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District	1/20/2009	East Crane
1	450	CARB 100	137.2	129.6

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District	1/21/2009	East Crane
2	450	CARB 100	162.7	154.4

Precision Power	7/26/2005	Engine 4	550	EPA Method 10	38.0	28.9	100% load

Precision Power	7/27/2005	Engine 1	550	EPA Method 10	 	45.6	100% load

Precision Power	7/28/2005	Engine 3	550	EPA Method 10	 	82.8	25% load,
Arctic fuel

Precision Power	7/29/2005	Engine 2	550	EPA Method 10	 	90.9	25% load

CSU-Engines & Energy Conversion Laboratory	9/2/1999	Caterpillar 3508
1000	EPA Method 10	76.8	76.8	70% load

Badami Development Facility	6/26/2003	Generator 2	1680	EPA Method 10
327.1	75% load

Northstar Development Project - BP	7/8/2004	Engine 6	3570	EPA Method 10
 	69.4	Low load

Northstar Development Project - BP	7/9/2004	Engine 7	3570	EPA Method 10
 	142.9	Mid load

	Draft Floor (< 300 HP)

	Count	2

	Top 12%	1

	Ave of Top 12%	230	ppm @15 %O2

	Draft Floor (300-500 HP)

	Count	2

	Top 12%	1

	Ave of Top 12%	137	ppm @15 %O2

	Draft Floor (> 500 HP)

	Count	8

	Top 12%	1

	Ave of Top 12%	38	ppm @15 %O2

	Above the Floor (300-500 HP)

Data Point Used	162.7	ppm @15 %O2

	CO reduction	70	%

	Above the Floor Standard	49	ppm @15 %O2

	Above the Floor (> 500 HP)

Data Point Used	76.8	ppm @15 %O2

	CO reduction	70	%

	Above the Floor Standard	23	ppm @15 %O2

 Note there are more than 30 engines in each subcategory

 Memorandum from Bradley Nelson and Tanya Parise, EC/R Inc. to Melanie
King, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/ESG, Subcategorization of Existing Stationary CI
RICE (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708).

I

Y

c

t

ˆ

’

¥

Ñ

Ò

í

!

"

#

,

O

%O

V

m

p

q

r

s

w

„

Š

”

$

$

h

h«

h«

h«

h«

h¾\

L

L

ᔀ轨慕ᘀ轨慕　ཊ䠀Īࡕḁ Alpha-Gamma Technologies to Sims
Roy, EPA OAQPS ESD Combustion Group, CO Removal Efficiency as a
Surrogate for HAP Removal Efficiency, January 7, 2004
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0665.)

E C/R Incorporated	Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

501 Eastowne Drive, Suite 325  (  Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>  (  Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  9

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  8

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  12


[Federal Register: December 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 73689-73690]
[DOCID:fr03de08-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety Advisory 2008-02

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory; Safety Appliance Securement,
Potential Failure of Welded Hand Brake Supports on GVSR 200000 Series
Flatcars.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2008-02 in order to provide
guidance to interested parties concerning the inspection and repair of
GVSR series flatcars that have been modified to add welded vertical
hand brake supports. FRA's Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance
Motive Power and Equipment (MP&E) Division has been notified of a
catastrophic failure of the welded securement of the vertical hand
brake support on Flatcar GVSR 209000. The failure occurred on May 29,
2008, and resulted in the fatality of a Union Pacific Railroad (UP)
train crewmember.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Blankenship, Mechanical Engineer,
MP&E Division (RRS-14); FRA Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone: (202)
493-6446.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 29, 2008, at approximately 10:17 a.m.
(CST), a railroad employee was riding a cut of four cars while
attempting to set the hand brake on Flatcar GVSR 209000. During this
task, the hand brake support angles, which had been previously welded,
suddenly broke; this may have contributed to the employee falling under
the rolling equipment, resulting in the fatality. Preliminary details
of this incident indicate that the welded vertical hand brake support
angles had an ``old break'' condition that allowed the remaining weld
to fail when force was applied to the hand brake. Field investigation
of the failed vertical hand brake support indicates that the hand brake
and/or brackets were improperly applied or not mechanically fastened.
See Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sections 231.110B3,
231.1(a)(4)(iii), and 231.27(a)(4)(iii), requiring hand brake housing
to be securely fastened to a car.
    Flatcars in the GVSR 200000 series were built in Chicago, IL, by
Thrall Manufacturing in 1973, with a horizontal hand brake assembly
that was later modified for vertical hand brake operation. The flatcars
that may have been modified from horizontal application to vertical
application are in the following series and are owned by UP:

 GVSR<PHONE_NUMBER>02
 GVSR<PHONE_NUMBER>34
 GVSR<PHONE_NUMBER>04
 GVSR<PHONE_NUMBER>02
 GVSR<PHONE_NUMBER>04

FRA believes there may be other flatcars that have been similarly
converted and that they may be subjected to the same type of failure.
    Recommended Action: Recognizing the need to ensure safety, FRA
recommends that railroads and car owners operating flatcars that have a
vertical hand brake support that is welded to the carbody carefully
inspect the cars to determine the adequacy of any welded securement.
Any car found with a defective condition should be immediately handled
for repair in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 20303 and repaired in
accordance with accepted industry practice or by using approved
fasteners as outlined in 49 CFR Section 231.1(a)(4)(iii). Welding,
where present, must be done in accordance with industry practice, as
specified in American Welding Society Standards D1 and D15. FRA further
recommends that UP inspect all of the above noted series flatcars and
immediately handle for repair those cars found with defective fastening
conditions. UP is encouraged to work closely with FRA by furnishing its
MP&E Division with a complete list of affected cars, any inspection
findings, a list of repairs made to the cars, and the date repairs were
completed on the cars.
    FRA may modify this Safety Advisory 2008-02, issue additional
safety advisories, or take other appropriate action necessary to ensure
the highest level of safety on the Nation's railroads.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 26, 2008.
Jo Strang,
Associate Administrator for Safety.
[FR Doc. E8-28652 Filed 12-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


<

<

<

<ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY>

<[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1026; FRL-XXXX-X]>

<Pesticide Products; Registration Applications>

<<AGENCY:>< Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).>>

<<ACTION:>< Notice.>>

<<SUMMARY:>< This notice announces receipt of applications to register
pesticide products containing new active ingredients not included in any
currently registered products pursuant to the provisions of section
3(c)(4) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), as amended.>>

<<DATES:>< Comments must be received on or before [<insert date [insert
number] days after date of publication in the> <Federal Register>].>>

<<ADDRESSES:><  Submit your comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1026, by one of the following
methods:>

<	• Federal eRulemaking Portal: <http://www.regulations.gov>. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.>

<	• <Mail>: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.>

<	• <Delivery>: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental
Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777
S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.>

<	<Instructions>:  Direct your comments to docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-1026.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the docket without change and may be made available
on-line at <http://www.regulations.gov>, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The Federal regulations.gov website 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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit.  If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.>

<	<Docket>: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
<http://www.regulations.gov>, select “Advanced Search,” then
“Docket Search.”  Insert the docket ID number where indicated and
select the “Submit” button. Follow the instructions on the
regulations.gov web site to view the docket index or access available
documents. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at <  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov >, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm.
S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from
8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.>>

<<FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:>< >

<   Joanne I. Miller, Registration  Division (7505P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<>

< >

<<<>>

>

>>

<

<SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:>

<I.  General Information>

<A.  Does this Action Apply to Me?>

<	You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:>

<	• Crop production (NAICS code 111).>

<	• Animal production (NAICS code 112).>

<	• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).>

<	• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).>

<	This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action.  Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected.  The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether
this action might apply to certain entities.  If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed under <FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT>.>

<B.  What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?>

<	 1. <Submitting CBI>.  Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail.  Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI.  For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI.  In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed
as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.>

<	2. <Tips for preparing your comments>.  When submitting comments,
remember to:>

<	i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, <Federal Register > date and page
number).>

<	 ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.>

<	iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.>

< 	iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.>

<	v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived
at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.>

<	vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest
alternatives.>

<	vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.>

< 	viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.>

<II. Registration Applications>

<	EPA received applications as follows to register pesticide products
containing active ingredients not included in any previously registered
products pursuant to the provision of section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA.  Notice
of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency
on the applications.>

<APPLICATION FORM>

	<File Symbol: 264-RNEE. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander
Drive; Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Product name: Pyrasulfotole
Technical Herbicide Active ingredient: 5-hydroxy-1,
3-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-4yl)
[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)pheny1]methonene at 98.6%.
Proposal classification/Use: None/Manufacturing Use.>

<APPLICATION FORM>

	<File Symbol: 264-RNEG. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander
Drive; Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Product name: Huskie Herbicide
Active ingredient: 5-hydroxy-1, 3-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-4yl)
[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)pheny1]methonene, Bromoxynil
Heptanoate and Bromoxynil Octanoate at 3.3%, 12.9% and 13.4%. Proposal
classification/Use: None/ Control of certain broadleaf weeds in wheat,
barley, oats, rye and triticale..>

<APPLICATION FORM>

	<File Symbol: 264-RNEU. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander
Drive; Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Product name: AE 0317309 SE06
Herbicide Active ingredient: 5-hydroxy-1, 3-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-4yl)
[2-(methylsulfonyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)pheny1]methonene at 4.4%.
Proposal classification/Use: None/Control of certain broadleaf weeds in
wheat, barley, oats and triticale.>

<>

<>

<

<List of Subjects>

<	Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.>>

<>

<<Dated:<________>>

<>

<<________________>>

<>

<Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.>>>

<>

<[FR Doc. 07-????? Filed ??-??-07; 8:45 am]>

<BILLING CODE 6560-50-S>>>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register: October 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 63465-63467]
[DOCID:fr24oc08-61]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 17, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC09-5-000.
    Applicants: Carr Street Generating Station, L.P., Bear Swamp Power
Company LLC, Brookfield Energy Marketing Inc., Brookfield Energy
Marketing U.S. LLC, Brookfield Power Piney & Deep Creek LLC, Brookfield
Renewable Energy Marketing U.S. LLC, Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P.,
Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, Hawks Nest Hydro LLC, Rumford Falls
Hydro LLC, Brookfield Asset Management Inc., Great Lakes Holding Inc.,
Brookfield Renewable Power Holdings Inc., Brookfield Renewable Power,
Inc.
    Description: Application for authorization under Section 203 for
indirect disposition of jurisdictional assets etc re Carr Street
Generating Station, LP et al.
    Filed Date: 10/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 4, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG09-4-000.
    Applicants: Red Hills Wind Project, L.L.C.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Red Hills Wind Project, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 10/16/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-5020.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 6, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER08-1356-002.
    Applicants: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company.
    Description: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company submits Third
Revised Rate Schedule FERC 1 effective 11/1/08.
    Filed Date: 10/16/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0249.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1371-00.2
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits correction to its
8/22/08 filing with the clean and redlined 2nd Sub 3rd Revised Second
Revised Sheet 221 etc.

    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0267.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-48-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. submits generator
interconnection service agreements with Global Ampersand, LLC etc.
    Filed Date: 10/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-0149.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 30, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-49-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Pacific Gas and Electric Co. submits revised generator
interconnection service agreements with Lompoc Wind Project LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/09/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-0148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, October 30, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-62-000.
    Applicants: Enel Stillwater, LLC.
    Description: Enel Stillwater, LLC submits an application for order
accepting market based rate tariff (FERC Electric Tariff, Original
Volume 1), granting waivers and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0248.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-70-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. submits a letter agreement
with Orion Power New York.
    Filed Date: 10/16/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 6, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-72-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Order No. 890 OATT Filing re Xcel Energy.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 05, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-73-000.
    Applicants: APS Energy Services Co., Inc.
    Description: APS Energy Services Company, Inc. submits a Notice of
Cancellation and canceled rate schedule sheet that terminates APSES's
market-based rate tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0241.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-74-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits a Notice of Succession to inform
the Commission that as a result of a transaction whereby PacifiCorp
acquired Chehalis Power Generating, LLC and subsequently merged
Chehalis etc.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0242.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-75-000.
    Applicants: Pioneer Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Pioneer Transmission LLC submits a request for
acceptance of a formula rate and rate incentives for their investments
in a major 765 kV transmission project that they intend to build in
Indiana etc.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0243.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-76-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc. submits an amended
Interconnection and Operating Agreement between Bayou Cove Peaking
Power, LLC and Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0236.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-77-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy submits an amended Interconnection and
Operating Agreement between Hot Spring Power Company, LLC and EAI.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0237.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-78-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy submits an amended Interconnection and
Operating Agreement between Acadia Power Partners, LLC.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0238.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-79-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. submits executed Meter
Agent Services Agreement between Smoky Hills Wind Project II, LLC as
the Market Participant and Westar Energy, Inc. as the Meter Agent.
    Filed Date: 10/16/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0240.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 6, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-80-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., New York
State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator Inc. et al.
submits an executed amended and restated large generator
interconnection agreement among the NYISO, NYSEG, and the Developer,
Noble etc.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0239.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-81-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Standards of Business Practices
and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities (Order No. 676-C).
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES09-1-000.
    Applicants: Edison Sault Electric Company.
    Description: Edison Sault Electric Co. submits an application for
authority to issue securities pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal
Power Act.
    Filed Date: 10/01/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081003-0110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 22, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ES09-4-000.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
    Description: Application for order pursuant to Section 204 of the
Federal Power Act authorizing the issue and sale of short-term debt of
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/16/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, November 6, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:
    Docket Numbers: OA08-26-001.
    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Description: Order No. 890 OATT Attachment K Compliance Filing of
Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-5080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-30-001.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: El Paso Electric Company submits Attachment K and
Order No. 676-C Compliance Filings.

    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-5131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-33-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits their
compliance filing to reflect changes to Attachment E (Transmission
Planning Process) of its Open Access Transmission Tariff, effective 12/
7/07.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081017-0044.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-35-002.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services, Inc.
    Description: Order No. 890 OATT Filing re Xcel Energy.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-5076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-38-002.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Resources Operating Company.
    Description: Order No. 890 OATT Attachment K--Transmission Planning
Process compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA08-51-001.
    Applicants: Carolina Power & Light Company.
    Description: Compliance Filing re rollover rights of Carolina Power
& Light Company.
    Filed Date: 10/15/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081015-5077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 5, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA09-6-000.
    Applicants: WSPP, Inc.
    Description: WSPP, Inc. submits revisions to their Open Access
Transmission Tariff incorporating specific changes to the Order 890 pro
forma OATT.
    Filed Date: 10/06/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081008-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, October 27, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA09-8-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits an informational filing re operational penalties.
    Filed Date: 10/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20081016-0049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 4, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-25421 Filed 10-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34300-34301]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14138]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0378; FRL-9685-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Revision to Allegheny County Regulations for Prevention
of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP). This revision pertains to the Air Pollution Control
portion of the Allegheny County Health Department (ACHD) Rules and
Regulations, relating to ACHD's Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program. Additionally, EPA is proposing to make a determination
that the proposed SIP revision will satisfy the Clean Air Act (CAA)
infrastructure requirements relating to PSD for the 1997 ozone and
particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. This Action is being taken under the section
110(k) of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 11, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0378 by one of the following methods.
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0378, Kathleen Cox, Associate Director,
Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0378. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105; and Allegheny County Health
Department, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality,
301

39th Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15201.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul T. Wentworth, P.E. at: (215) 814-
2183, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On July 1, 2008, PADEP
submitted a revision to its SIP on behalf ACHD. The SIP submittal
consists of changes to the ACHD Rules and Regulations, Article XXI, Air
Pollution Control, relating to ACHD's PSD program.

I. Background

    On December 14, 1983, EPA delegated authority to ACHD to implement
and enforce the provisions of Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 40 CFR 52.21 on behalf of EPA (see 48 FR 55625, December 14,
1983).
    On February 13, 2003, ACHD requested EPA to update and affirm the
existing delegation of authority agreement between Allegheny County and
EPA based on the representations included in Allegheny County's
February 13, 2003 letter to EPA (see 68 FR 14617). On March 18, 2003,
EPA formally notified ACHD that as of the publication date of the
information notice in the Federal Register (March 26, 2003), pursuant
to 40 CFR 52.21(u), ACHD was delegated full authority to implement all
portions of the federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21. Future additions,
revisions, or deletions to 40 CFR 52.21 which are adopted by EPA are
automatically incorporated into this delegation of authority agreement.
EPA noted that authority is delegated to ACHD for all sources located
in Allegheny County subject to review pursuant to the federal PSD
program. This includes all source categories listed in 40 CFR 52.21 for
each pollutant regulated by the CAA (see 68 FR 14617).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On July 1, 2008, PADEP submitted ACHD's proposed revision to their
portion of the SIP. This SIP submission adds Allegheny County's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations at Article
XXI section 2102.07 entitled, ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration,'' by incorporating by reference, the federal PSD program
at 40 CFR 52.21 in its entirety. In addition, ACHD requests that as
their regulation automatically incorporates by reference all future
changes to 40 CFR 52.21, that such future changes be automatically
incorporated into the SIP.
    The SIP revision submitted by ACHD on July 1, 2008 contained a
provision in section 2102.07(d) that would relieve a person of the duty
to comply with the PSD requirements as promulgated by EPA and
incorporated in section 2102.07 if such person was ``legally
temporarily relieved of the duty to comply.'' On May 1, 2012 PADEP
submitted a letter notifying EPA that they were withdrawing that
portion of the SIP revision.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve ACHD's PSD permitting program by
proposing approval of this SIP submission with the exception of the
language in section 2102.7 as described above. EPA has determined that
this revision is approvable because it conforms to the CAA and
implementing regulations. Additionally, EPA is proposing to determine
that ACHD has met its obligations pursuant to the PSD portion of the
CAA infrastructure requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
and (J) for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Copies of the technical support document
supporting EPA's decision to approve ACHD's PSD permitting program and
EPA's determination that ACHD has met its obligations pursuant to the
PSD portion of the infrastructure requirements of the CAA can be
obtained from the docket as discussed in the ADDRESSES section above.
EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 SIP revision, regarding Allegheny
County's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply
in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 21, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-14138 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22171-22172]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1471-000]

Blue Sky West, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Blue Sky West, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an

accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is May 4, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 14, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-09045 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P