[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73387-73391]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29790]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0409; FRL-9759-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Determinations of Attainment of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone
Standard for the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley Moderate Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to make two separate and independent
determinations regarding the Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area (the Pittsburgh Area). First, EPA is proposing to
determine that the Pittsburgh Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by the applicable
attainment date of June 15, 2010. This proposal is based upon complete,
quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the
2007-2009 monitoring period showing monitored attainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Second, EPA is proposing to determine that the
Pittsburgh Area is attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on
complete, quality assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data
for the 2009-2011 monitoring period, and available preliminary data for
2012. If finalized, this determination would suspend the requirement
for the Pittsburgh Area to submit an attainment demonstration,
reasonably available control measures (RACM), a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures related to attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for so long as the area continues to attain
that NAAQS. These determinations do not constitute a redesignation to
attainment. The Pittsburgh Area will remain designated nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA determines that
the Pittsburgh Area meets the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for
redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance plan.
These actions are being taken under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 9, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0409 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-2012-0409, Donna Mastro, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, 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-
2012-0409. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this action.

I. Background
II. Summary of Proposed Actions
III. EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The Pittsburgh Area

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it
at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. On
April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. Among those nonattainment areas is the Pittsburgh Area, which
includes Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and
Westmoreland Counties in Pennsylvania. See 40 CFR 81.339.

B. Classification Under Subpart 2

    Under the implementation rule for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, EPA
designated certain areas under title I, part D, subpart 1 of the CAA
(subpart 1) if they had a 1-hour design value below 0.121 ppm. In June
2004, EPA designated the Pittsburgh Area nonattainment under subpart 1
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In June 2007, the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit Court)
vacated the portion of the 1997 ozone implementation rule that allowed
areas to be designated under subpart 1. On April 27, 2012, EPA
finalized revisions to the 2004 rule that specified the first phase of
requirements to meet the 1997 8-hour NAAQS (Phase 1 Implementation
Rule). The revisions to the Phase 1 Implementation Rule are EPA's
response to a December 22, 2006 decision by the DC Circuit Court in
South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir.
2006) and were effective on June 13, 2012 (77 FR 28424). As a result of
this action, the CAA classifications for 16 nonattainment areas,
including the Pittsburgh Area, were revised for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The areas were originally classified under the more general
subpart 1 provisions of the CAA. Through this rulemaking, the areas
were classified as marginal or moderate under the ozone-specific
subpart 2 provisions of the CAA, depending on their design values at
the time of the original designations in April 2004. The Pittsburgh
Area was classified as moderate. Moderate areas are required to attain
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2010.

C. Previous Determination of Attainment

    Under the provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (see 40 CFR
section 51.918), if EPA issues a determination that an area is
attaining the relevant standard (through a rulemaking that includes
public notice and comment), it will suspend the area's obligations to
submit an attainment demonstration, RACM, RFP, contingency measures,
and other planning requirements related to attainment for as long as
the area continues to attain. The determination of attainment, also
known as a ``clean data'' determination, is not equivalent to a
redesignation. The state must still meet the statutory requirements for
redesignation in order to be redesignated to attainment.
    On May 31, 2011, EPA published a final determination that the
Pittsburgh Area had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. (76 FR
31237). That determination was based upon complete, quality assured,
and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the Pittsburgh Area
has monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2007 to
2009 monitoring period. In accordance with EPA's applicable ozone
implementation rule, that determination suspended the obligation of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM analysis, RFP plan, contingency measures, and other
planning requirements related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for the Pittsburgh Area required under subpart 1 of the CAA for
as long as the Pittsburgh Area continues to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. That determination of attainment was not equivalent to a
redesignation to attainment. The Commonwealth must still meet the
statutory requirements for redesignation in order to be redesignated to
attainment.
    In its May 31, 2011 final rulemaking action, EPA explained that
when the Pittsburgh Area was reclassified under subpart 2, EPA would
address in a separate rulemaking the consequences

of a determination of attainment for any requirements to which the
Pittsburgh Area became subject as a result of its reclassification. If
EPA subsequently determined in that rulemaking action that the
Pittsburgh Area continued to be in attainment, then the obligation to
submit the applicable attainment-related requirements for its new
classification would be suspended in accordance with 40 CFR 51.918. (76
FR 76929). As previously discussed, the Pittsburgh Area was
reclassified under subpart 2, effective June 13, 2012. Therefore,
today's proposed rulemaking addresses the Pittsburgh Area's obligations
under its new moderate classification.

D. Requirement To Determine Attainment by the Attainment Date

    Under CAA section 181(b)(2), EPA is required to determine whether a
nonattainment area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its
applicable attainment date, and to publish that determination in the
Federal Register. If EPA determines that an area failed to attain the
ozone NAAQS by its attainment date, the area is reclassified to a
higher classification.

E. Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data

    Complete, quality assured, certified 8-hour ozone air quality
monitoring data for the 2007-2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-2011 monitoring
periods for the Pittsburgh Area, as recorded in the EPA Air Quality
System (AQS) database show that the Pittsburgh Area has attained the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Preliminary data available to date for 2012 is
consistent with continued attainment.

II. Summary of Proposed Actions

    These actions do not constitute a redesignation to attainment under
section 107(d)(3) of the CAA. The designation status of the Pittsburgh
Area will remain nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until
such time as EPA determines that the area meets the CAA requirements
for redesignation to attainment, including an approved maintenance
plan.

A. Determination of Attainment by the Attainment Date

    EPA is proposing to make a determination that the Pittsburgh Area
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date
of June 15, 2010. This determination is based upon complete, quality
assured and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009
monitoring period, which is the last full three-year period prior to
the June 15, 2010 attainment date. The 2007-2009 data show that the
Pittsburgh Area monitored attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The effect of a final determination of attainment by the Pittsburgh
Area's attainment date would be to discharge EPA's obligation under CAA
section 181(b)(2) to determine, based on the Pittsburgh Area's air
quality as of the attainment date, whether the area attained the
standard by that date and to establish that the Pittsburgh Area will
not be reclassified.

B. ``Clean Data'' Determination of Attainment

    EPA is also proposing to make a determination that the Pittsburgh
Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This determination is
based upon complete, quality assured and certified ambient air
monitoring data that show the Pittsburgh Area has monitored attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2009-2011 monitoring period.
Preliminary data available for 2012 are consistent with continued
attainment. Under the provisions of EPA's implementation rule for the
1997 8-hour NAAQS (see 40 CFR 51.918), a final determination of
attainment would suspend the CAA requirements for the Pittsburgh Area
to submit an attainment demonstration and the associated RFP plan,
contingency measures, RACM analysis, and any other planning
requirements related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
required for moderate areas under subpart 2 of the CAA. This suspension
would remain in effect until such time, if any, that EPA (i)
redesignates the area to attainment at which time those requirements no
longer apply, or (ii) subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment
rulemaking, that the Pittsburgh Area has violated the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. This final determination would be separate from, and would not
influence or otherwise affect, any future designation or requirements
for the Pittsburgh Area based on any new or revised ozone NAAQS. It
remains in effect regardless of whether EPA designates the Pittsburgh
Area as a nonattainment area for purposes of any new or revised ozone
NAAQS.

III. EPA's Analysis of the Relevant Air Quality Data

    Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, EPA
has reviewed the 8-hour ozone ambient air quality monitoring data for
the 2007-2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-2011 monitoring periods for the
Pittsburgh Area, as recorded in the AQS database. On the basis of that
review, EPA has concluded that the Pittsburgh Area attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment date, based on data for the 2007-
2009 monitoring period. EPA has also concluded that the Pittsburgh Area
continues to attain, based on data for the 2008-2010 and 2009-2011
monitoring periods. Preliminary 2012 data is consistent with continued
attainment.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard is attained at a site when the 3-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations at an
ozone monitor is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm (i.e., 0.084 ppm, based
on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I). This 3-year
average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is
less than or equal to 0.084 ppm at each monitoring site within the
area, then the area is meeting the NAAQS.
    Also, the data completeness requirement is met when the average
percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90%,
and no single year has less than 75% data completeness as determined in
accordance with appendix I of 40 CFR part 50.
    Tables 1, 2, and 3 below show the ozone design values for each
monitor in the Pittsburgh Area for the years 2007-2009, 2008-2010, and
2009-2011, respectively. All design values are below 0.084 ppm, and all
monitors meet the data completeness requirements. Therefore, EPA finds
that the Pittsburgh Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
considering 2007-2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-2011 data.

                          Table 1--2007-2009 Pittsburgh Area 8-Hour Ozone Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           2007-2009 Average
                       County                             Monitor ID            % data         2007-2009 Design
                                                                             completeness         value (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny...........................................           420030008                  99               0.077
                                                               420030010                  99               0.074

                                                               420030067                  98               0.073
                                                               420031005                  97               0.082
Armstrong...........................................           420050001                 100               0.077
Beaver..............................................           420070002                  97               0.073
                                                               420070005                  97               0.071
                                                               420070014                 100               0.073
Washington..........................................           421250005                  99               0.072
                                                               421250200                 100               0.068
                                                               421255001                  95               0.072
Westmoreland........................................           421290006                 100               0.071
                                                               421290008                  99               0.072
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table 2--2008-2010 Pittsburgh Area 8-Hour Ozone Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           2008-2010 Average
                       County                             Monitor ID            % data         2008-2010 Design
                                                                             completeness         value (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny...........................................           420030008                  98               0.076
                                                               420030010                  96               0.071
                                                               420030067                  99               0.074
                                                               420031005                  99               0.081
Armstrong...........................................           420050001                 100               0.076
Beaver..............................................           420070002                  97               0.071
                                                               420070005                  96               0.073
                                                               420070014                  95               0.071
Washington..........................................           421250005                  99               0.070
                                                               421250200                  99               0.068
                                                               421255001                  94               0.071
Westmoreland........................................           421290006                  99               0.068
                                                               421290008                  98               0.072
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table 3--2009-2011 Pittsburgh Area 8-Hour Ozone Design Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           2009-2011 Average
                       County                             Monitor ID            % data         2009-2011 Design
                                                                             completeness         value (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny...........................................           420030008                  98               0.074
                                                               420030010                  95               0.071
                                                               420030067                  99               0.075
                                                               420031005                  99               0.080
Armstrong...........................................           420050001                 100               0.073
Beaver..............................................           420070002                  97               0.069
                                                               420070005                  98               0.072
                                                               420070014                  94               0.071
Washington..........................................           421250005                  99               0.069
                                                               421250200                  99               0.068
                                                               421255001                  96               0.069
Westmoreland........................................           421290006                  99               0.068
                                                               421290008                  98               0.069
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared for this action,
EPA has evaluated the air quality data for the Pittsburgh Area. EPA's
review of the data indicates that the Pittsburgh Area has met the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. For details, please refer to EPA's TSD, which can
be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0409.

IV. Proposed Actions

    EPA is proposing to make two determinations regarding the
Pittsburgh Area. First, pursuant to section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA,
EPA is proposing to determine that the Pittsburgh Area attained the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its applicable attainment date, June 15,
2010. This proposed determination is based upon complete, quality
assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data for the 2007-2009
monitoring period. The effect of a final determination would be that:
(i) EPA has met the requirement pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) to
determine, based on the area's air quality as of the attainment date,
whether the area attained the standard; and (ii) the Pittsburgh Area
would not be reclassified for failure to attain by its applicable
attainment date. Second, EPA is proposing to make a determination that
the Pittsburgh Area has attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This
proposed ``clean data''

determination is based upon complete, quality assured, and certified
ambient air monitoring data that show the area has monitored attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the 2009-2011 monitoring period.
Available preliminary 2012 data is consistent with continued
attainment. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, if this clean data determination
is finalized, it would suspend the requirements for the Pittsburgh Area
to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, RFP plan,
contingency measures, and any other planning requirements related to
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for so long as the area
continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Finalizing both of these determinations or either of them would not
constitute a redesignation of the Pittsburgh Area to attainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3). Neither
determination of attainment involves approving a maintenance plan for
the Pittsburgh Area, nor determines that the Pittsburgh Area has met
all the requirements for redesignation under the CAA, including that
the attainment be due to permanent and enforceable measures.\1\
Therefore, the designation status of the Pittsburgh Area will remain
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS until such time as EPA
takes final rulemaking action to determine that the Pittsburgh Area
meets the CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before EPA takes final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The monitoring data from the 2007-2009, 2008-2010, and 2009-
2011 monitoring periods that is relied on in this notice may be
impacted by reductions associated with the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), which was remanded to EPA in 2008. North Carolina v. EPA,
531 F.3d 896, as modified on reh'g, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008).
Nonetheless, because this action addresses only whether the
monitoring data shows attainment, EPA need not address at this time
whether such attainment was due to the remanded CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make determinations based on air quality,
and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain federal
requirements, and/or would not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are 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);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do 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, these proposed determinations that the Pittsburgh Area
attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS do not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the determinations do not 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, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 21, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-29790 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 71148-71149]
[DOCID:fr08de06-64]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER02-1024-000, ER02-1024-001]

Duke Energy Sandersville, L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

December 1, 2006.
    Duke Energy Sandersville, L.L.C. (Duke Sandersville) filed an
application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying
tariff (market-based rate tariff). The proposed market-based rate
tariff provides for the sale of capacity, energy, and/or certain
ancillary service at market-based rates and the reassignment of
transmission capacity. Duke Sandersville also requested waivers of
various Commission

regulations. In particular, Duke Sandersville requested that the
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Duke
Sandersville.
    On April 12, 2002, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Rates--East, granted the requests for blanket
approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the
Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal Register
establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly,
any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approvals of
issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Duke
Sandersville should file a motion to intervene or protest 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, 385.214
(2006).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is December 15, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Duke Sandersville is authorized to issue securities and assume
obligations or liabilities as guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise
in respect of any security of another person, provided that such
issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate
purposes of Duke Sandersville, compatible with the public interest, and
is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Duke Sandersville's issuance of securities or
assumptions of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at  http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the e-Filing link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-20818 Filed 12-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35209]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14965]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ11-12-001]

Orlando Utilities Commission; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on May 26, 2011, Orlando Utilities Commission
submitted its tariff filing per 35.17(b): Amendment to Compliance
Filing to be effective 4/15/2011.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 pm Eastern Time on June 20, 2011.

    Dated: June 10, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14965 Filed 6-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 172 (Friday, September 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 53057]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL14-95-000]

PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on August 26, 2014, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824(e) and Part 35 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, 18 CFR Part 35, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) filed proposed revisions to section 6.4.2
of Schedule 1 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement, to
revise PJM rules related to offer price adders (FMU adders) for
generation units that are frequently offer capped and eliminate the
unjust and unreasonable status quo that currently exists in which FMU
adders act as windfall revenues for most Market Sellers of Frequently
Mitigated Units, as more fully described in the filing.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 16, 2014.

    Dated: August 28, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21096 Filed 9-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 157)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47043-47044]
[DOCID:fr13au08-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0497; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-096-AD;
Amendment 39-15629; AD 2008-16-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-61, DC-8-
61F, DC-8-63, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71F, and DC-8-73F Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-61, DC-8-61F, DC-8-63, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71F,
and DC-8-73F airplanes. For certain airplanes, this AD requires non-
destructive testing (NDT) to detect cracks of the door jamb corners of
the forward and aft service doors, and doing applicable related
investigative and corrective actions. For certain other airplanes, this
AD requires inspecting and repairing if necessary or replacing
previously repaired door jamb corners with an applicable repair. This
AD results from reports of numerous cases of cracks in the skin at the
door jamb corners of the forward and aft service doors. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of door jamb corners of
the forward and aft service doors, which could adversely affect the
structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective September 17, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024)

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jon Mowery, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-61, DC-8-61F, DC-8-63, DC-8-63F,
DC-8-71F, and DC-8-73F airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on May 6, 2008 (73 FR 24887). For certain airplanes,
that NPRM proposed to require non-destructive testing (NDT) to detect
cracks of the door jamb corners of the forward and aft service doors,
and doing applicable related investigative and corrective actions. For
certain other airplanes, that NPRM proposed to require inspecting and
repairing if necessary or replacing previously repaired door jamb
corners with an applicable repair.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 299 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. This AD affects about 55 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The testing takes about 1 work hour per airplane, at an average labor
rate of $80 per work hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost
of the AD for U.S. operators is $4,400, or $80 per airplane, per
testing cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-16-11 McDonnell Douglas: Amendment 39-15629. Docket No. FAA-
2008-0497; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-096-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 17,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) As specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, this AD affects
certain requirements of AD 93-01-15, amendment 39-8469.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to McDonnell Douglas Model DC-8-61, DC-8-
61F, DC-8-63, DC-8-63F, DC-8-71F, and DC-8-73F airplanes,
certificated in any category; as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin DC8-53A082, dated February 6, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of numerous cases of cracks in
the skin at the door jamb corners of forward and aft service doors.
We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of
door jamb corners of the forward and aft service doors, which could
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Testing, Inspecting, Repairing, and Related Investigative and
Corrective Actions

    (f) At the applicable compliance time and repeat intervals
listed in Tables 1 through 5 inclusive of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A082, dated
February 6, 2007; except where ``the service bulletin'' specifies a
compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD
requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the
effective date of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraph
(f)(1), (f)(2), or (f)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configurations 1 and 2,
in the service bulletin: Do the testing and related investigative
and corrective actions by accomplishing all the applicable actions
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin.
    (2) For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 3, in the
service bulletin: Inspect and repair discrepancies in accordance
with a method approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
    (3) For airplanes identified as Group 1, Configuration 4, in the
service bulletin: Do the actions specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) or
(f)(3)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Repair door jamb corners of the service door using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(h) of this AD.
    (ii) Replace the previously repaired door jamb corners with an
applicable repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions
of the service bulletin.

Compliance With Certain Requirements of AD 93-01-15

    (g) Accomplishment of the applicable actions required by
paragraph (f) of this AD constitutes compliance with certain
requirements of AD 93-01-15, as it pertains to the affected areas of
principal structural elements 53.08.039 and 53.08.040 of McDonnell
Douglas Report No. L26-011, ``DC-8 Supplemental Inspection Document
(SID),'' dated December 1985.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. For a
repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification
basis of the airplane and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC8-53A082, dated
February 6, 2007, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the
AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood
Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service
Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024).
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_
regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 23, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-17743 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P