[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12685-12687]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04726]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC22-45-000.
    Applicants: TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc., TransAlta
Energy Marketing Corp., TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC, TransAlta
Wyoming Wind LLC, Lakeswind Power Partners, LLC, Big Level Wind LLC,
Eagle Canada Common Holdings LP, BIF IV Eagle NR Carry LP.
    Description: Joint Application for Authorization Under Section 203
of the Federal Power Act of TransAlta Energy Marketing (U.S.) Inc, et
al.
    Filed Date: 2/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220228-5397.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG22-60-000.
    Applicants: Number Three Wind LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Number Three Wind LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220228-5405.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL21-68-000.
    Applicants: Nebraska Public Power District.
    Description: Request for Remedial Relief Under Federal Power Act
Section 309 Request of the Nebraska Public Power District.
    Filed Date: 4/19/21.
    Accession Number: 20210419-5325.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: EL21-68-000.
    Applicants: Nebraska Public Power District.
    Description: Errata to the April 19, 2021, Request for Remedial
Relief Under Federal Power Act Section 309 of the Nebraska Public Power
District.
    Filed Date: 4/30/21.
    Accession Number: 20210430-5687.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4351-013.
    Applicants: Pinnacle Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Pinnacle Wind, LLC, et
al.
    Filed Date: 2/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220225-5270.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2019-003.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Tucson Electric Power Company submits Annual
Informational Filing with 2020 Annual Update of its Transmission
Formula Rate.
    Filed Date: 2/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220228-5375.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-669-006.
    Applicants: Morongo Transmission LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Morongo Transmission Compliance
Filing in Docket ER21-669 to be effective 5/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220228-5253.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-669-007.
    Applicants: Morongo Transmission LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Amendment of Compliance Filing in
Docket ER21-669 to be effective 5/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220301-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER21-1923-001.
    Applicants: Black Rock Wind Force, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Black Rock Wind Force,
LLC.
    Filed Date: 2/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220225-5265.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-511-001.
    Applicants: Morongo Transmission LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing in Docket ER22-
511 to be effective 1/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 2/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220228-5248.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/21/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-958-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, LLC, System Energy Resources, Inc.
    Description: Formal Challenge of Retail Regulators to January 31,
2022 Annual Informational Filing by System Energy Resources, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/28/22.
    Accession Number: 20220228-5376.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1131-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: March 2022 Membership Filing
to be effective 3/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220301-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1132-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA, SA
No. 3188; Queue No. W3-135 to be effective 3/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220301-5031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1133-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Informational Filing of [2022] Formula Rate Annual
Update of Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Filed Date: 2/25/22.
    Accession Number: 20220225-5269.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/18/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1134-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Pine Gate Renewables (Fable
Solar) LGIA Filing to be effective 2/14/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220301-5130.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1135-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company,
Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Alabama Power Company
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): Pine Gate Renewables (Happy
Lake Solar) LGIA Filing to be effective 2/14/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220301-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1136-000.
    Applicants: Sac County Wind, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Compensation
Filing to be effective 4/30/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220301-5153.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1137-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of ICSA, SA
No. 5559; Queue No. AE1-142 to be effective 11/3/2021.
    Filed Date: 3/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220301-5183.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1139-000.
    Applicants: Flat Ridge 2 Wind Energy LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Certificate of Concurrence
to Common Facilities Agreement to be effective 4/2/2022.
    Filed Date: 3/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220301-5207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES22-30-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Southwest Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of Xcel Energy Southwest
Transmission Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220301-5241.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

    Docket Numbers: ES22-31-000.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Transmission Development Company, LLC.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of Xcel Energy Transmission
Development Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/1/22.
    Accession Number: 20220301-5251.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/22/22.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF21-222-002.
    Applicants: Board of Trustees of Michigan State University.

    Description: Form 556 of Board of Trustees of Michigan State
University.
    Filed Date: 2/24/22.
    Accession Number: 20220224-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 3/28/22.

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

    Dated: March 1, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04726 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1798-1799]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00272]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0832; FRL-9374-2]

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of an initial
filing of a pesticide petition requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0832, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Burnett, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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 email. 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.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing receipt of a pesticide petition filed under
section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), (21
U.S.C. 346a), requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the request before responding to the petitioner. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petition described in this document contains data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not
fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or
whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petition. After
considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and
what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA
can make a final determination on this pesticide petition.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of the petition that is the
subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is included in a
docket EPA has created for this rulemaking. The docket for this
petition is available online at http://www.regulations.gov. As
specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), (21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3)), EPA is
publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an opportunity
to comment on this request for the establishment or modification of
regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities.
Further information on the petition may be obtained through the
petition summary referenced in this unit.
    PP 2F8056. Fine Agrochemicals Ltd. c/o SciReg, Inc., 12733
Director's Loop, Woodbridge, VA 22192, requests to amend an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.1299 for residues of
the plant growth regulator prohydrojasmon (PDJ), propyl-3-oxo-2-
pentylcyclo-

pentylacetate, in or on red apples and grapes. The petitioner believes
no analytical method is needed because this request is to establish a
permanent exemption from the requirement of a tolerance and, therefore,
an analytical method is not required.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives,
Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

     Dated: December 12, 2012.
Sheryl K. Reilly,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-00272 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Brown and Clinton Counties are a small portion of the CMSA's population and emissions. Accordingly, EPA concluded that these counties do not contribute to nonattainment in the Cincinnati area.

* Butler, Clermont, Hamilton, and Warren Counties 5 46 Comment: 1013a 38 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Cleveland Akron Lorain, OH Comment: The nearby Wayne County should be included in the Cleveland nonattainment area due to its high emissions of SO2, NOx and VOC.

EPA Response: EPA recommends in our 120 day letters that the entire Cleveland Akron Elyria metropolitan be designated nonattainment. Wayne County, which is adjacent to but not part of the Cleveland Akron Elyria CMSA, has low emissions when compared to the Cleveland metropolitan area ( Ashtabula, Lake, Geauga, Cuyahoga, Lorain, Medina, Summit, and Portage counties). The population of Wayne County, while moderate in size, is small when compared to the population of the Cleveland metropolitan area ( 112,704 persons vs. 2,950,614 persons). While 19 percent of Wayne county commuters commute to other metro counties, the number of commuters is small ( 10,099). For SO2, Wayne County emissions are low when compared to the Cleveland metropolitan area ( 21,450 tpy vs. 138,379 tpy). NOx emissions from Wayne County are also small when compared to the Cleveland metropolitan area ( 8,911 tpy vs. 173,252 tpy).

A further analysis of Wayne County's emissions, which consisted of a comparative review of 1996 and 1999 NEI data, shows that between 1996 and 1999, the Tenneco Packaging facility, the second largest point source in Wayne County, had shut down, taking with it 10,328 tpy SO2. The 1996 NEI data show the total point source SO2 emissions for Wayne County at 28,776.46 tons per year. The 1999 NEI data ( which reflect the Tenneco shutdown) show the total point source SO2 emissions for Wayne County at 18,716.73 tons, a 10,000 ton reduction. While neither the 1996 nor 1999 NEI values are substantially different from the 2001 NEI value used in the designations spreadsheet ( 21,450 tons), they suggest the variability and potential uncertainty of NEI data for rural or non metropolitan area counties. Regardless, the emissions and population of Wayne County are small when compared to the Cleveland metropolitan area.

Comment: 1031 3 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Cleveland Akron Lorain, OH Comment: Geauga and Ashtabula Counties are part of the Cleveland/ Akron/ Ashtabula combined metropolitan statistical area. These counties only combine for 6.6% of the CMSA population, have the lowest VMT in the proposed nonattainment area and, on annual average basis, are downwind of the monitored violations. While neither of these counties are currently monitored, there are monitors measuring attainment between these counties and the monitors exhibiting the urban excess. Ohio does not believe that these 5 47 areas are experiencing or significantly contributing to the nonattainment problems in Cleveland or Akron.

Based on data from the EPA Clean Air Markets database, emissions have been reduced at the Ashtabula plant since 1996 due to various unit retirements and reductions in utilization. In fact, it appears that emissions at the plant have been reduced from approximately 67,000 tons of SO2 to 2600 tons and a reduction in NOx emissions from approximately 4800 to 1700 tons over the same period. In addition, Ashtabula County is generally downwind of the Cleveland nonattainment area. Wind roses from Cleveland and Erie, PA, based on National Weather Service meteorological data collected from 1984 1992, show that there are relatively few occurrences of winds that would transport emissions from Ashtabula County to Cleveland. Additional emission controls on sources in Ashtabula County would do little or nothing to achieve attainment in the Cleveland area.

EPA Response: Regarding Ashtabula County, the emissions data EPA used in assessing PM2.5 designations reflect emissions for 2001. Ohio cited emission reductions since 1996 but does not specify whether any of these reductions occurred since 2001. In EPA's database, the Ashtabula Plant is estimated to emit 11,882 tons per year of SO2 and 3,085 tons per year of NOx. Thus, it appears that most of the emission reductions noted by Ohio have in fact already been credited.

As a result, EPA views Ashtabula Township, which includes the Ashtabula plant and a significant fraction of the population of Ashtabula County, as contributing to nonattainment in the Cleveland area. However, EPA concludes that the remainder of this county may be designated attainment.

Regarding Geauga County, EPA has reassessed the data for this area and concluded that this county indeed has low emissions and low population. EPA is thus designating Geauga County as attaining the standard.

Comment: 1013a 39 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Columbus, OH Comment: EPA failed to include Ross, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, Union, Marion, Know and Fayette Counties in the recommended Columbus CMSA nonattainment area. The Picway electric generating station in Pickaway County emitted over 10,000 tons of SO2 in 2002. Coshocton County, adjacent to the CMSA, is home to the Conesville electric generating facility. In 2002 this facility emitted over 135,000 tons of SO2 and almost 27,000 tons of NOx.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs, which were delineated by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) in 1999, include 5 48 populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA's April 2003 guidance recognized that OMB planned to publish revised urban area definitions sometime in 2003, but, because the release date ( which turned out to be June 6, 2003) was not known at that time, EPA decided that it needed to use the 1999 definitions for the PM2.5 designation process. However, EPA encouraged states to consider counties in the CBSAs or CSAs under the 2003 definitions. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) and wind frequency before deciding to designate Ross, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, Union, Marion, Knox, and Fayette Counties as attainment/ unclassified. Among the reasons for the attainment/ unclassified designations for Ross, Madison, Morrow, Pickaway, Union, Marion, Knox, and Fayette Counties are:

a. Ross County:

 Ross County is outside the Columbus MSA, yet considered part of the Columbus CSA. However, urban increment data for Columbus show that the PM2.5 urban excess in Columbus is 27% nitrates and 73% carbon. While nitrogen precipitation is known to occur long distances away from the source, nitrogen emissions are small when compared to Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking counties ( 8,000 tpy vs. 62,000). The direct carbon emissions from Ross County are small when compared to Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties ( 423 tpy vs. 4,073 tpy).

b. Madison County:

 While part of the Columbus MSA, Madison County, when compared to Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties, has low population ( 40,365 persons vs. 1,490,105 persons) and emissions ( SO2: 233 tpy vs. 9466 tpy)( NOx: 3,106 tpy vs. 62,000 tpy)( direct carbon: 259 tpy vs. 4,073 tpy).

c. Morrow County:

 Morrow County, when compared to Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties, has low population ( 32,976 persons vs. 1,490,105 persons) and emissions ( SO2: 291 tpy vs. 9466 tpy)( NOx: 2,434 tpy vs. 62,000 tpy)( direct carbon: 157 tpy vs. 4,073 tpy).

d. Pickaway County:

 EPA's comparison of the concentrations of PM2.5 components in Columbus versus background locations suggest that the principal impacts of Columbus area sources on concentrations in Columbus are from sources of nitrogen oxides and directly emitted carbonaceous particles. Specifically, the Columbus urban excess is estimated to be comprised of 27% nitrates and 73% direct carbon. Notwithstanding the uncertainties in this estimate, and notwithstanding the fact that Pickaway County emits about half of the SO2 of the metropolitan area, the evidence suggests that SO2 emissions should not be an important factor in defining the area from which local contributions to Columbus 5 49 violations arise. More significantly, the NOx and direct carbon emissions from Pickaway are low when compared to Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties ( NOx: 5,971 tpy vs. 62,000 tpy) ( direct carbon: 363 tpy vs. 4,073 tpy).

e. Union County:

 Union County, when compared to Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties, has low population ( 74,469 persons vs. 1,490,105 persons) and emissions ( SO2: 377 tpy vs. 9466 tpy)( NOx: 2,202 tpy vs. 62,000 tpy)( direct carbon: 246 tpy vs. 4,073 tpy).

f. Marion County:

 Marion County, when compared to Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties, has low population ( 66,028 persons vs. 1,490,105 persons) and emissions ( SO2: 675 tpy vs. 9466 tpy)( NOx: 3,896 tpy vs. 62,000 tpy)( direct carbon: 273 tpy vs. 4,073 tpy).

g. Knox County:

 Knox County, when compared to Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties, has low population ( 56,037 persons vs. 1,490,105 persons) and emissions ( SO2: 302 tpy vs. 9466 tpy)( NOx: 2,225 tpy vs. 62,000 tpy)( direct carbon: 258 tpy vs. 4,073 tpy).

h. Fayette County:

 Fayette County, when compared to Delaware, Fairfield, Franklin, and Licking Counties, has low population ( 28,176 persons vs. 1,490,105 persons) and emissions ( SO2: 309 tpy vs. 9466 tpy)( NOx: 2,136 tpy vs. 62,000 tpy)( direct carbon: 204 tpy vs. 4,073 tpy).

Regarding the Conesville power plant in Coshocton County, EPA concurs with the commenter and is designating Franklin Township as nonattainment in order that the nonattainment area include the Conesville power plant.

Comment: 1013a 40 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Dayton Springfield, OH Comment: Champaign, Darke, Miami and Preble Counties were left out of EPA's recommended nonattainment area, but are part of the Dayton CMSA and must be included in the nonattainment area.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs, which were delineated by OMB in 1999, include populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA's April 2003 guidance recognized that OMB planned to publish revised urban area definitions sometime in 2003, but, because the release date ( which turned out to be 5 50 June 6, 2003) was not known at that time, EPA decided that it needed to use the 1999 definitions for the PM2.5 designation process. However, EPA encouraged states to consider counties in the CBSAs or CSAs under the 2003 definitions. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) and wind frequency from Miami County ( which is part of the 1999 Dayton CMSA/ MSA), and Champaign, Darke, and Preble counties ( which are part of the 2003 CSA/ CBSA) before deciding to designate them as attainment/ unclassified. Among the reasons we designated these counties attainment are:

a. Miami County  The population of Miami County is low when compared to the rest of the MSA ( 99,596 vs. 847,850).

 The emissions for Miami County are small when compared to the rest of the MSA ( for SO2: 478 tpy vs. 13,653 tpy) ( for NOx: 4,116 tpy vs. 38,709 tpy)

( for direct carbon: 337 tpy vs. 1,974 tpy) ( for crustal: 972 tpy vs. 3,298 tpy)

 We do not feel that Miami County is contributing to PM2.5 violations in the Dayton Area b. Champaign County  The population of Champaign County is low when compared to Clark, Greene and Montgomery counties ( 39,121 vs. 847,850)

 The emissions from Champaign County are small when compared to emissions from Clark, Greene, and Montgomery Counties ( for SO2: 383 tpy vs. 13,653 tpy) ( for NOx: 1,757 tpy vs. 38,709 tpy) ( for direct carbon: 180 tpy vs. 1,974 tpy) ( for crustal: 602 tpy vs. 3,298 tpy)

 We do not feel that Champaign County is contributing to PM2.5 violations in the Dayton area.

c. Darke County The population of Darke County is low when compared to Clark, Greene and Montgomery counties ( 52,966 vs. 847,850)

 The emissions from Darke County are small when compared to emissions from Clark, Greene, and Montgomery Counties ( for SO2: 551 tpy vs. 13,653 tpy) ( for NOx: 3,174 tpy vs. 38,709 tpy) ( for direct carbon: 381 tpy vs. 1,974 tpy) ( for crustal: 1,316 tpy vs. 3,298 tpy)

 We do not feel that Darke County is contributing to PM2.5 violations in the Dayton area. 5 51 d. Preble County The population of Preble County is low when compared to Clark, Greene and Montgomery counties ( 42,680 vs. 847,850)

 The emissions from Preble County are small when compared to emissions from Clark, Greene, and Montgomery Counties ( for SO2: 428 tpy vs. 13,653 tpy) ( for NOx: 2,765 tpy vs. 38,709 tpy) ( for direct carbon: 1228 tpy vs. 1,974 tpy) ( for crustal: 721 tpy vs. 3,298 tpy)

 We do not feel that Preble County is contributing to PM2.5 violations in the Dayton area.

Comment: 1031 2 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Huntington Ashland, WV KY OH Comment: Several facilities have installed controls in response to the NOx SIP call. These facilities include: SCR: Avon Lake, Eastlake, Cardinal, Gavin, Keiger Creek, Killen, Miami Fort, Sammis, Stuart, and Zimmer. With respect to the counties that we are requesting to be excluded from the nonattainment list, Killen and Stuart are in Adams County and Gavin and Kyger Creek are in Gallia County.

Ohio EPA is also in the process of reviewing permit applications and modeling protocols for the installation of sulfur dioxide scrubbers for several facilities. A permit application ( or a determination of environmentally beneficial project by the Director) for scrubbers at Miami Fort units 7 and 8 is currently being processed. Modeling protocols have been submitted for scrubber installations at Cardinal, Killen, and Stuart. Killen and Stuart are in Adams County. The rise in the cost of SO2 allowances is partially responsible for driving these utilities to install this equipment.

EPA Response: While SCR on these facilities is a good and necessary measure for reducing emissions from these facilities, SCR primarily reduces NOx emissions and does not address SO2 emissions from these facilities. EPA believes that even with SCR, power plants can still contribute to the sulfate component of PM2.5 violations in the state.

In regards to the permits in process at the State, EPA reiterates that future controls cannot be a factor in determining the attainment/ nonattainment status for any area. Notwithstanding the submittal of modeling protocols and other indications of progress toward Ohio permitting installation of controls, Ohio EPA did not identify when these controls might become effective and provided no means of assuring that these controls will necessarily be installed. Therefore, EPA cannot give credit for these potential controls. 5 52 Comment: 1031 5 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Huntington Ashland, WV KY OH Comment: Scioto County contains one monitoring location. Based on the complete three year period 2001 2003, that monitor was not attaining the PM2.5 annual standard. The peak three year average annual concentration for the period 1999 2001 was 22.03 µ g/ m3. The three year annual average concentration for the period 2001 2003 at that monitor was 17.23 µ g/ m3. Based on the most recent 10 quarters, ( January 2002 June 2004), the highest annual average concentration is 14.37 µ g/ m3. The improvement at this monitor is obviously attributable to the shutdown of the New Boston Coke facility in April 2002 as well as the reductions associated with the compliance with Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This area will clearly attain the annual PM2.5 standard by the proposed effective date for PM2.5 designations in early 2005.

EPA Response: EPA has decided to provide a 45 day opportunity for states to provide complete 2004 data. This will allow EPA to adjust its final designations according to whether areas are violating the air quality standards based on 2002 to 2004 data. However, EPA views the Huntington Ashland area as a single nonattainment area, so EPA does not intend to designate Ohio portions of the area as attainment if violations continue to be monitored for example in the West Virginia portion of the area.

Comment: 1031 6 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Huntington Ashland, WV KY OH Comment: Lawrence County contains one monitoring location. Based on the complete three year period 2001 2003, that monitor was not attaining the PM 2.5 annual standard. The peak three year average annual concentration for the period 199 2001 was 17.67 ug/ m3. The three year annual average concentration for the period 2001 2003 at that monitor was 15.83 ug/ m3. Based on the most recent 10 quarters ( January 2002 June 2004), the highest annual average concentration is 14.03 ug/ m3. The improvement at this monitor is obviously attributable to reductions associated with compliance with Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This area will clearly attain the annual PM2.5 standard by the proposed effective date for PM 2.5 designations in early 2005.

EPA Response: EPA has decided to provide a 45 day opportunity for states to provide complete 2004 data. This will allow EPA to adjust its final designations according to whether areas are violating the air quality standards based on 2002 to 2004 data. However, EPA views the Huntington Ashland area as a single nonattainment area, so EPA does not intend to designate Ohio portions of the area as attainment if violations continue to be monitored for example in the West Virginia portion of the area. 5 53 Comment: 1031 1 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Huntington Ashland, WV KY OH | Cleveland Akron Lorain, OH | Wheeling, WV OH | Columbus, OH Comment: The commenter believes that the boundaries U. S. EPA is proposing are too broad.

The inclusion of adjacent " power plant" counties represents an inconsistent implementation of U. S. EPA's findings that all power plants in the NOx SIP Call/ CAIR region contribute to nonattainment. For U. S. EPA to be consistent, all areas containing coal fired power plants should be designated nonattainment.

U. S. EPA has indicated that all power plants within the region contribute significantly to nonattainment, but yet only counties with power plants that are in or adjacent to an area with a measured violation are included into the nonattainment area. The inconsistent application of nonattainment designations will put a number of counties in Ohio at a disadvantage to similar power plants in other states. This is especially unfortunate given the faulty logic EPA used to justify its eleventh hour inclusion. For example, designating Adams County will not affect the ability of the Scioto County monitor to reach attainment.

Ohio EPA does not believe that designating power plant counties nonattainment will improve air quality or in any way assist states in developing plans to bring attainment to these areas. Adams, Ashtabula, Belmont, Coshocton, and Gallia Counties should not be designated nonattainment.

Ohio EPA also expressed concern about the identification and control of those sources associated with the urban/ industrial excess in areas where the CAIR requirements will not be sufficient to attain the standards. U. S. EPA has made major assumptions about the source of the urban excess concentrations which have been found at the violating monitors. An extensive analysis was prepared by U. S. EPA which purports to identify the location of the sources of the urban excess. In this weighted emissions analysis, all emissions within and adjacent to the metropolitan area have been assumed to have equal potential to contribute to the urban excess. We believe that this fundamental assumption underlying the weighted emissions analysis is flawed.

Finally, Ohio EPA identified several areas in the State for which data from 2002 to mid 2004 show attainment; Ohio EPA recommends that these areas be designated attainment.

EPA Response: EPA cannot take into account proposed rules like CAIR when designating areas as attainment or nonattainment for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Since there is no guarantee that proposed rules like CAIR will be implemented, EPA cannot take CAIR into consideration in this process. Regarding the NOx SIP Call, it is true that NOx emissions from power plants, which can contribute to an area's PM2.5 problem, are 5 54 addressed. However, the same facilities also emit SO2, which is not addressed in the NOx SIP Call and contributes to PM2.5 problems in Ohio.

Section 107( d)( 1)( A)( i) of the Clean Air Act requires EPA to designate as " nonattainment, any area that does not meet ( or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard for the pollutant". If EPA were to simply designate all areas with power plants in the state as nonattainment, it might be viewed as arbitrary and capricious. EPA intends to designate as nonattainment full and partial counties which include all but one of the power plants listed in Title IV. The power plant in Pickaway County is the only Title IV plant to be located in an proposed attainment area. This is because EPA's 9 factor review shows that Pickaway county does not significantly contribute to emissions violations in the Columbus area.

EPA has decided to provide a 45 day opportunity for states to provide complete 2004 data. This will allow EPA to adjust its final designations according to whether areas are violating the air quality standards based on 2002 to 2004 data.

a. Adams County  EPA intends to designate Sprigg and Monroe Townships as nonattainment for PM2.5. The J. M. Stuart and Killen plants are located in the proposed nonattainment area. EPA believes that emissions from these plants are contributing to violations in the Huntington Ashland Area.

b. Gallia County  EPA intends to designate Cheshire Township as nonattainment for PM2.5. The Kyger Creek and J. M. Gavin plants are located in the proposed nonattainment area. EPA believes that emissions from those plants are contributing to violations in the Huntington Ashland area.

c. Belmont County  Not only does the power plant in Belmont County contribute to violations in the Parkersburg Marietta area, but the 69,448 persons living in Belmont County represent 46% of the three County metropolitan area population.

d. Ashtabula County  EPA believes that emissions in Ashtabula Township within Ashtabula County significantly contribute to PM2.5 Violations in the Cleveland area. 5 55 e. Coshocton County  EPA intends to designate Franklin Township as nonattainment for PM2.5. The Conesville plant is located in the proposed nonattainment area. EPA believes that the plant contributes to violations in the Columbus area.

With respect to EPA's weighted emissions information, this information is only part of the information EPA considered. Emissions information is one of 9 factors which EPA used to analyze potential nonattainment areas. The weighted emissions value was intended as a means of compiling information on emissions of a variety of pollutants that have different emissions air quality relationships to obtain a single indicator of the overall level of emissions in a county. However, EPA recognizes that other factors also influence the impact that each county's emissions have. This is why the other 8 factors ( most notably wind data and information on geographic proximity) were utilized by EPA to judge better the potential contribution of a county's emissions to its respective metropolitan area.

Comment: 1031 4 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Parkersburg Marietta, WV OH Comment: Washington County is part if the Parkersburg/ Marietta MSA. The area has one monitor, located in Wood County, West Virginia. Annual average concentrations for this monitor have been significantly decreasing. Annual average concentrations for the period 2001 to present are 2001, 17.4 µ g/ m3, 2002, 15.8 µ g/ m3, 2003, 14.9 µ g/ m3, and 2004 ( so far) 12.7 µ g/ m3. The most recent three year average, including the 2004 partial year, is 14.47 µ g. m3. The improvement at this monitor is obviously attributed to reductions associated with compliance with Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This area will clearly attain the annual PM2.5 standard by the proposed effective date for PM 2.5 designations in early 2005.

Ohio EPA also notes that a " recently approved SIP revision to the AMP Ohio Gorsuch facility greatly reduces the potential emissions of PM2.5 precursors".

EPA Response: EPA has decided to provide a 45 day opportunity for states to provide complete 2004 data. This will allow EPA to adjust its final designations according to whether areas are violating the air quality standards based on 2002 to 2004 data.

Despite the reduction in the ' potential' emissions from the AMP Gorsuch Plant, EPA has seen no evidence that the actual emissions from the Gorsuch Plant have decreased, and so EPA has no evidence that the actual contribution from this plant has decreased. 5 56 Comment: 1013a 41 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Toledo, OH Comment: EPA failed to recommend that the Toledo CMSA counties of Fulton, Ottawa and Sandusky be designated nonattainment; these areas must be included in the nonattainment area.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as the presumptive boundary for considering PM 2.5 nonattainment areas. The boundaries of CMSAs and MSAs, which were delineated by OMB in 1999, include populated areas associated with core urban areas. EPA's April 2003 guidance recognized that OMB planned to publish revised urban area definitions sometime in 2003, but, because the release date ( which turned out to be June 6, 2003) was not known at that time, EPA decided that it needed to use the 1999 definitions for the PM 2.5 designation process. However, EPA encouraged states to consider counties in the CBSAs or CSAs under the 2003 definitions. EPA considered nine factors including the emissions, population, vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) and wind frequency from Fulton and Ottawa Counties ( which are part of the 1999 Dayton CMSA/ MSA), and Sandusky County ( which is part of the 2003 CSA/ CBSA) before deciding to designate them as attainment/ unclassified. Among the reasons we designated these counties attainment are:

a. Fulton County  The population of Fulton County is low when compared to Lucas and Wood Counties ( 42,573 vs. 575,893).

 The emissions for Fulton County are small when compared to Lucas and Wood Counties ( for SO2: 878 tpy vs. 32,410 tpy) ( for NOx: 5,105 tpy vs. 45,797 tpy)

( for direct carbon: 336 tpy vs. 1,836 tpy) ( for crustal: 692 tpy vs. 3,115 tpy)

 We do not feel that Fulton County is contributing to PM2.5 violations in the Toledo Area b. Ottawa County  The population of Ottawa County is low when compared to Lucas and Wood Counties ( 41,049 vs. 847,850)

 The emissions from Ottawa County are small when compared to emissions from Lucas and Wood Counties ( for SO2: 1,544 tpy vs. 32,410 tpy) ( for NOx: 5,031 tpy vs. 45,797 tpy) ( for direct carbon: 403 tpy vs. 1,836tpy) ( for crustal: 687 tpy vs. 3,115 tpy)

 We do not feel that Ottawa County is contributing to PM2.5 violations in the Toledo 5 57 c. Sandusky County The population of Sandusky County is low when compared to Lucas and Wood Counties ( 61,698 vs. 847,850)

 The emissions from Sandusky County are small when compared to emissions from Lucas and Wood Counties ( for SO2: 2,937 tpy vs. 32,410 tpy) ( for NOx: 8,288 tpy vs. 45,797 tpy) ( for direct carbon: 300 tpy vs. 1,836 tpy) ( for crustal: 1,170 tpy vs. 3,115 tpy)

 We do not feel that Sandusky County is contributing to PM2.5 violations in the Toledo area.

Comment: 1031 7 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Toledo, OH Comment: The Toledo MSA contains three monitoring locations. Based on the complete three year period 2001 2003, there was one monitor not attaining the PM 2.5 annual standard. The peak three year annual average concentration for the period 1999 2001 was 16.97 µ g/ m3. The three year annual average concentration for the period 2001 2003 at that monitor was 15.07 µ g/ m3. Based on the most recent 10 quarters, ( January 2002 June 2004), the highest annual average concentration is 14.03 µ g/ m3. The improvement in this area is obviously attributable to the reductions associated with Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This area will clearly attain the annual PM2.5 standard by the proposed effective date for PM 2.5 designations in early 2005.

EPA Response: EPA has decided to provide a 45 day opportunity for states to provide complete 2004 data. This will allow EPA to adjust its final designations according to whether areas are violating the air quality standards based on 2002 to 2004 data.

Comment: 1031 8 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Youngstown Warren Sharon, OH PA Comment: The Youngstown MSA currently contains four monitors. During the period 2001 2003, there were two monitors with three years worth of data. The peak three year annual average concentration for the period 1999 2001 was 16.43 µ g/ m3. The highest three year annual average concentration for the period 2001 2003 was 15.20 µ g/ m3. Based on the most recent 10 quarters, ( January 2002 June 2004), the highest annual average concentration is 14.10 µ g/ m3. The improvement in this area is obviously attributable to the reductions associated with Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This area will clearly attain the annual PM2.5 standard by the proposed effective date for PM 2.5 designations in early 2005. 5 58 EPA Response: EPA has decided to provide a 45 day opportunity for states to provide complete 2004 data. This will allow EPA to adjust its final designations according to whether areas are violating the air quality standards based on 2002 to 2004 data.

Comment: 1031 9 Region: 5 State: OH Area: Youngstown Warren Sharon, OH PA Comment: Columbiana County is part of the Youngstown/ Warren MSA. The MSA also includes Mahoning and Trumbull Counties. Columbiana County should be excluded from this MSA nonattainment even if the remainder of the MSA is retained. Columbiana County should be excluded due to:

 Proximity to the source region/ nonattainment area: Columbiana County is located south of the Youngstown urban/ industrial area. The area would not expect to be impacted by, nor should it be considered a receptor for, the Youngstown area.

 Population: The population of Columbiana County is 112,075 which is only 19% of the total MSA ( 594,746).

Emissions: Columbiana County emissions of SO2, VOX, and NOx are 1291, 6157 and 5511 tons per year, respectively. MSA total emissions of VOC and NOx are 40,968 and 39,376 tons per year, respectively. Columbiana County is near the Steubenville and Canton MSAs but is northeast ( downwind) of a primarily rural/ agricultural area.

 Land use: Columbiana County is over 96% wooded or agricultural.

EPA Response: EPA believes that 19% is a large fraction of an area's representative population. When looking at the entire nation, Columbiana County's demographics and emissions are small numbers, but they represent a significant proportion ( about 16% of the overall emissions) of a fairly small metropolitan area that nevertheless violates the PM2.5 standard. EPA believes that Columbiana County is contributing to PM2.5 violations in Youngstown Warren, and should be part of the nonattainment area.

Also, while Mahoning and Trumbull counties have seen population losses in the past 10 years ( 7,251 and  2,697 persons, respectively), Columbiana County has seen an increase ( 3,799), the only population increase in the 3 County MSA.

Comment: 1006 1 Region: 5 State: WI Area: Chicago Gary Lake County , IL IN Comment: Commenters express concern regarding the presumptive inclusion of Kenosha County in the Chicago Gary nonattainment area. They are concerned about a 5 59 presumptive designation that does not cite unacceptable levels of PM2.5 in the county and one that does not distinguish state regulations and local efforts. They ask EPA to carefully consider specific conditions in Kenosha County before they lump it in with the other counties in the Chicago Gary MSA.

EPA Response: The EPA uses the CMSA/ MSA as a presumptive boundary of nonattainment areas for PM2.5 EPA guidance also provides for use of 9 factors to evaluate alternative nonattainment area boundaries to include the area that is violating the standards and the nearby areas that are contributing to these violations.

For the PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA invited States to consult and make recommendations on air quality and appropriate boundaries to EPA. At the time this comment was received, the EPA had received no formal recommendations from the State of Wisconsin regarding PM2.5 nonattainment areas or boundaries. On August 9, 2004, EPA received a letter from Wisconsin Governor, Jim Doyle, that recommended Kenosha County as attainment. Many of the points raised in the commenter's letter are also raised in the Governor's letter.

EPA has reviewed the justification found in Governor Doyle's letter and evaluated other available information regarding the pertinent 9 factors. Based on this review, EPA has determined that Kenosha County should be designated as attainment for the PM2.5 standard. The technical support document provides a more complete discussion of EPA's rationale for this decision.

Comment: 1034 1 Region: 5 State: WI Area: Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN Comment: Commenters strongly urge EPA to reconsider designating Kenosha County as attainment and including it as part of the Chicago Gary Kenosha area. They believe Kenosha County should be excluded on the basis of the following factors:

1. Kenosha County has a reading of 11.7 ppm, which is well below the NAAQS standard of 15 ppm.

2. Kenosha County's level of emissions represent less that 10% of the total emissions in the MSA.

3. Kenosha's population density of 548.2 persons/ square mile is less than half of neighboring Lake County, IL and less than one tenth of Cook County, IL.

4. Approximately 75% of Kenosha County commuters travel to Lake County, IL, which also meets the PM2.5 NAAQS. 5 60 5. The predominant direction of wind from Kenosha County is away from the violating areas.

6. Most of the SO2 and NOx emissions in Kenosha County can be traced to power plant that has already made significant pollution equipment upgrades.

EPA Response: While EPA originally considered Kenosha County as a candidate for nonattainment, that was based on a presumption that all counties in a CMSA with a violating monitor should be nonattainment unless a technical justification from the State gave a compelling reason, or reasons, to consider a county attainment. At the time, there was no recommendation from Wisconsin regarding Kenosha County or any other counties in Wisconsin.

On August 9, 2004, Wisconsin Governor, Jim Doyle, submitted a letter to EPA that recommended Kenosha County as attainment for the PM2.5 standard. Given the technical justification in that letter ( many of the same points were raised by Congressmen Feingold, Kohl and Ryan in their letter) EPA has determined that Kenosha County should be attainment. Please see the technical support document for more details regarding this decision.

Comment: 1035 1 Region: 5 State: WI Area: Chicago Gary Lake County, IL IN Comment: The commenter writes on behalf of the City of Kenosha to request that EPA designate Kenosha County as an attainment area for the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard. The available data does not support the inclusion of Kenosha County in the Chicago CSMA PM2.5 nonattainment area.

The City is very concerned about the potential economic impacts and impediments to job growth that could occur in our community as a result of a nonattainment designation. Based on the available data, it does not appear that designating Kenosha County as nonattainment ( when our county has some of the lowest concentrations of particulates in the area) will in any way help EPA achieve its goal or improve air quality in the counties experiencing exceedances of the PM2.5 particulate standard.

FACTOR 1. EMISSIONS IN AREAS POTENTIALLY INCLUDED VERSUS EXCLUDED FROM THE NONATTAINMENT AREA. According to EPA's data, Kenosha County has a composite emissions score of 5.4, meaning that almost ninety five percent of emissions contributing to PM2.5 originates from outside of the County. See Illinois Response at 4 5. Moreover, as explained in detail in Factor 9 below, prior to the time state implementation plans are due, emissions from Kenosha County will have been reduced through federally enforceable controls to a level that would represent an approximate composite emission score of 2.7. See Exhibit A. Thus, more than ninety five 5 61 percent of the emissions contributing to PM2.5 will originate from outside of Kenosha County.

Significantly, EPA has proposed to designate as attainment the counties of DeKalb and Kankakee as well as the majority of Grundy and Kendall counties in Illinois concluding that the bulk of emissions in the Chicago CMSA area would be captured without including those counties. See id. At 4. For comparison purposes, DeKalb, Kankakee, Grundy and Kendall counties have a total composite emission score of 5.2. Id. Clearly, Kenosha County, with a current composite emission score of 5.4 and an ultimate composite emission score of 2.7 ( once federally enforceable controls are fully implemented), is similarly situated to the Illinois counties EPA has proposed to designate as attainment.

FACTOR 2. AIR QUALITY IN POTENTIALLY INCLUDED VERSUS EXCLUDED AREAS. As EPA's data indicates, Kenosha County has no monitored violations for PM2.5. See Illinois Response at 5. The design value for this monitoring site is 11.7 µ g/ m3 which is well below the 15 µ g/ m3 standard. Id., see also EPA's air emissions monitoring data available on the World Wide Web at http:// www. epa. gov/ air/ data/. In fact, according to EPA's data, the Kenosha County design value is the lowest value for any of the counties in, or adjacent as attainment. See id. At 5 6. Furthermore, monitors in the adjoining Chicago CMSA counties of Lake and McHenry, both of which fall in between the Kenosha County monitor and the violating monitor in urban Chicago, also have no monitored violations for PM2.5. See id.

FACTOR 3. POPULATION DENSITY AND DEGREE OF URBANIZATION INCLUDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDED VERSUS EXCLUDED AREAS. According to EPA's data, Kenosha County only represents approximately 1.7 percent of the total population in the Chicago CMSA area. See Illinois Response at 6. Consistent with its analysis under Factor 1, the EPA has proposed to designate as attainment the counties of DeKalb and Kankakee as well as the majority of Grundy and Kendall counties in Illinois concluding that the bulk of the population would be captured without including those counties. Id. at 4. For comparison purposes, DeKalb, Kankakee, Grundy and Kendall counties account for approximately 3.2 percent of the population in the Chicago CMSA area compared to the 1.7 percent of the population in Kenosha County.

Moreover, Kenosha County has a lower urban density than the areas with monitors that violate the PM2.5 standard. Id. at 6. Furthermore, the further away from the area of urban density, the lower the PM2.5 measurements are. This would tend to indicate that the problem originates in the urban area instead of coming from the less dense area into the urban area.

FACTOR 4. TRAFFIC AND COMMUTING PATTERNS. According to EPA's data, Kenosha County represents only 1.8 percent of the total Chicago CMSA daily vehiclemiles traveled while DeKalb and Kankakee counties represent 2.3 percent and Grundy and Kendall counties represent 1.2 percent. See Illinois Response at 6. Moreover, EPA's 5 62 data shows that only about 28 percent of the Kenosha County resident labor force commutes to another county in the Chicago CMSA compared to 31 percent for DeKalb, 19 percent for Kankakee, 46 percent for Grundy and 67 percent for Kendall.

In addition, only 20,500 residents of Kenosha county commute to other counties in the Chicago CMSA compared to 23,000 commuters from DeKalb and Kankakee Counties and 27,500 commuters from Grundy and Kendall Counties. Furthermore, according to the Year 2000 U. S. Census, approximately seventy five percent of the Kenosha County commuters traveling to other counties in the Chicago CMSA travel to adjacent Lake County, IL which currently meets the standard. This supports the argument that commuters from Kenosha County are not significantly contributing to PM2.5 exceedances and that Kenosha County should not be included in the nonattainment area.

FACTOR 5. EXPECTED GROWTH ( INCLUDING EXTENT, PATTERN AND RATE OF GROWTH). According to EPA's data, the growth in population in Kenosha County from 1990 to 2000 was about 17 percent compared to 14 percent in DeKalb, 8 percent in Kankakee, 16 percent in Grundy and 38 percent in Kendall. See Illinois Response at 7. Clearly the similarity in growth patterns between Kenosha County and the excluded counties of DeKalb, Kankakee, Grundy and Kendall support excluding Kenosha County from the nonattainment designation.

FACTOR 6. METEOROLOGY ( WEATHER/ TRANSPORT PATTERNS). According to EPA's data, the predominant wind direction from Kenosha County is away from the violating counties in the Chicago CMSA while the wind direction from DeKalb, Kankakee, Grundy and Kendall counties is more predominately toward the violating counties. See Illinois response at 7.

FACTOR 7. GEOGRAPHY/ TOPOGRAPHY ( MOUNTAIN RANGES OR OTHER AIR BASIN BOUNDARIES). It does not appear the geography/ topography is a significant factor in considering whether Kenosha County should be included in the Chicago CMSA nonattainment area.

FACTOR 8. JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES ( e. g., COUNTIES, AIR DISTRICTS, RESERVATIONS, ETC.). Jurisdictional boundaries do not support including Kenosha County in the Chicago CMSA nonattainment area. For example, EPA recommends that states consider common boundaries for areas classified as nonattainment for both PM2.56 and ozone. See e. g., Boundary Guidance at 5 (" EPA seeks to maximize consistency between designations for PM2.5 and designations for the 8 hour ozone standard."). As EPA is aware, Kenosha County is considered to be part of the Milwaukee CMSA for the purpose of defining 1 hour and 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas. Accordingly, to maximize consistency between the PM2.5 and ozone designations, Kenosha County should be treated as part of the Milwaukee CMSA for PM2.5 air quality planning purposes. As a result, since there are no PM2.5 exceedances in the Milwaukee CMSA, Kenosha County should be designated attainment for the PM2.5 standard. 5 63 Furthermore, treating Kenosha County as part of Chicago CMSA lessens Wisconsin's control over its air quality programs, and may penalize the County for actions in other states that are entirely out of Wisconsin's control. For example, although Wisconsin has no control over a conformity failure to Indiana, it would suffer the consequences ( e. g., loss of federal funding and projects stop) for such a failure.

FACTOR 9. LEVEL OF CONTROL OF EMISSION SOURCES. Perhaps most importantly, EPA should note that in 2001, more than 85 percent of sulfur dioxide ( SO2) and nitrogen oxide ( NOX) emissions in Kenosha County came from the Pleasant Prairie Power Plant operated by We Energies. That company has already installed Selective Catalytic Reduction ( SCR) on one unit. In addition, Wisconsin DNR issued permit number 03 RSG 296 on April 5, 2004 to We Energies to allow installation of SCR on the remaining unit as well as scrubbers to control sulfur dioxide emissions on both units ( a copy of the We Energies permit is attached as Exhibit B). These controls are expected to be fully operational prior to December 2007 when state implementation plans for PM2.5 attainment are expected to be due.

Furthermore, these controls and the level of emissions from the We Energies facility will be federally enforceable. Notably, once these controls are fully implemented, emissions from Kenosha County will represent less than 2.7 percent of the total Chicago CMSA emissions. See Composite Emission Score for Kenosha County shown in Exhibit A. The composite emission score for Kenosha County was calculated by factoring in the emission reductions that will be achieved at the We Energies facility. More specifically the composite emission score was calculated as follows: first, the projected maximum allowable emissions ( assuming the plant operates 8760 hours per year at full capacity) from the facility after the controls are fully implemented using the limits specified in the permit were calculated; second, the maximum allowable emissions were subtracted from the 2001 actual emission totals from the facility to provide a total emission reduction number; third the total emission reductions that will be realized were then subtracted from the county wide emission totals for Kenosha County as shown in Factor 1 of the Illinois Response; finally the composite emission was calculated using the " urban increment" weighted averages as shown in the Illinois Response. As a result, these federally enforceable emission controls should allow EPA to exclude Kenosha County from the Chicago CMSA PM2.5 nonattainment area.

EPA Response: While EPA originally considered Kenosha County as a candidate for nonattainment, that was based on a presumption that all counties in a CMSA with a violating monitor should be nonattainment unless a technical justification from the State gave a compelling reason, or reasons, to consider a county attainment. At the time, there was no recommendation from Wisconsin regarding Kenosha County or any other counties in Wisconsin.

On August 9, 2004, Wisconsin Governor, Jim Doyle, submitted a letter to EPA that recommended Kenosha County as attainment for the PM2.5 standard. Given the technical justification in that letter ( many of the same points were raised in the letter submitted by 5 64 the City of Kenosha) EPA has determined that Kenosha County should be attainment. Please see the technical support document for more details regarding this decision. 5 65 Comments Received Late Response to comment letter dated November 30, 2004, from Steven Chester to Bharat Mathur:

A letter dated November 30, 2004, from Steven Chester to Bharat Mathur, comments on the PM2.5 designation for the Detroit area. The core of these comments are expressed as 8 numbered paragraphs. The following responses refer to the numbers of the items as given in that letter.

Items 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are points that were made in the letter from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality dated September 1, 2004, and were addressed in the response to that set of comments.

Regarding items 4 and 5, as stated in the response to the letter from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality dated September 1, 2004, EPA cannot base an area's air quality designation on projected air quality or on proposed legislation. Further, EPA agrees that it is important to have programs that address emissions on a national and regional scale. Although these programs would have a positive impact on many areas in Michigan and across the country, EPA must also define a nonattainment area that includes the more local sources that need consideration in air quality planning.

In response to item 8, although preliminary 2004 monitoring data indicate Monroe County may be in attainment of the PM2.5 standard, Monroe County contributes to violations of the standard in Wayne County. Thus, Monroe County should be designated as part of the Detroit nonattainment area regardless of Monroe County air quality.

Comment and Response 11/ 30/ 04 email from Dona J. Bergman, Director Evansville Environmental Protection Agency Comment: As of the end of the 2004 third quarter, Vanderburgh County is nonattainment of the PM2.5 annual national ambient air quality standard based upon data through the first three quarters of 2004. In addition, the PM2.5 levels in SW Indiana for the fourth quarter have been lower than each year's third quarter numbers.

Response: Three full calendar years of PM air quality data are required to establish an area's designation status. The Vanderburgh County data for 2004 cannot be used until the data for the entire year has been quality assured and the 2001 2003 PM air quality data has a 15.2 micrograms/ cubicmeter, which indicated nonattainment of the PM standard. However, EPA is allowing sufficient time for the 2004 fourth quarter data to be included, provided that this quality assured is submitted to EPA by 45 days after the PM designation notice is published.

EPA views Southwest Indiana, including Evansville as well as DuBois County, as a single area in which sources throughout the area contribute to violations currently being 5 66 observed in both Vanderburgh and DuBois Counties. EPA intends to retain a nonattainment designation for the entire area until such time as all monitors in the area, including the monitor in DuBois County as well as the monitors in Vanderburgh County, are showing attainment.

Comment: USEPA has stated the predominant wind direction for SW Indiana is from the S SW. Therefore, we can conclude Vanderburgh County with PM2.5 levels meeting the NAAQS, would not be adversely impacting Dubois County monitors.

Response: The predominant wind direction to Dubois County is SW and Vanderburgh County is SW of Dubois County.

Comment: In that much of the area between Vanderburgh and Dubois is rural, with few if any point sources, we believe it would be unfounded and unfair to designate Vanderburgh County, as well as Gibson, Pike, Spencer, and Warrick as nonattainment simply on the basis of the Dubois County monitor.

Response: In fact, Gibson, Pike, Spencer, and Warrick have significant ( mostly power plant) emissions.

Response to late comments from Indiana Department of Environmental Management:

EPA uses three full years of data to determine the design value for an area. EPA did examine the 2004 PM 2.5 data provided by Indiana. This data indicates the air quality in Southwestern Indiana is improving since the monitored PM 2.5 values continue to trend down. We understand your desire to avoid designating the area as nonattainment in December 2004 and then begin the redesignation process several months later if the complete 2004 PM 2.5 data indicates the area attains the annual NAAQS. This is why EPA is allowing states to submit their 2004 data before the designations effective date. EPA can revise its nonattainment designation for the area counties if the 2004 data shows that the entire Evansville area is attaining the fine particulate NAAQS. This data policy will also be applied in other areas.

We agree that power plant emissions are a substantial contributor to regional values. This includes contributions to the violations in Dubois and Vanderburgh Counties. A nonattainment area is defined in section 107( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) as an area that is violating an ambient air quality standard, or is contributing to a nearby area that is violating the standard. If an area meets this definition, EPA is obligated to designate the area as nonattainment. That is why EPA is designating Dubois, Vanderburgh, and Warrick Counties and portions of Gibson, Pike, and Spencer Counties as the Evansville nonattainment area. 5 67 Response to late comments from the mayor of Evansville:

EPA is required to use three full years of data to determine the design value for an area. Thus, the 2002 2004 design value for Vanderburgh County cannot be determined until all the 2004 data is received. EPA did examine the PM 2.5 data for the first three quarters of 2004 provided by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. This data indicates the air quality in Southwestern Indiana is improving since the monitored PM 2.5 values continue to trend down. We understand the desire to avoid designating Vanderburgh County as nonattainment in December 2004 and then begin the redesignation process just months later if the complete 2002 2004 PM 2.5 data indicates the area attains the annual NAAQS. This is why EPA is allowing states to submit their 2004 data before the designations effective date. EPA can revise its nonattainment designation for Vanderburgh County and the rest of the area if the 2004 data shows that the entire Evansville area is attaining the fine particulate NAAQS.

Many people believe that designation of an area as a nonattainment area significantly limits economic growth. EPA does not share this belief. First, the requirements for new sources in nonattainment areas are fairly similar to those in attainment areas: in both areas, new sources must be well controlled and must address their impact on the area's air quality. Second, while companies sometimes blame environmental restrictions for plant location decisions, in fact these decisions reflect a variety of factors such as access to markets, access to skilled labor, access to raw materials, and various cost factors that will commonly have more influence on the company's bottom line. Third, EPA believes that history has shown that nonattainment designations have not significantly affected economic growth. Nationally, from 1970 to 2003, the Gross Domestic Product of the nation has risen 176 percent, even while total emissions of the six criteria pollutants have decreased by 51 percent. Also, many areas that have been designated nonattainment have been growing just as much or more than attainment areas. Therefore, even beyond the fact that impacts on growth are not a criterion for designations under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not agree that nonattainment designations limit economic growth.

There is no consent decree requiring EPA to make its designations prior to December 15, 2004. EPA met the congressional deadline of December 31, 2004 for making PM 2.5 designations. As stated above, EPA is nevertheless providing the opportunity for states to submit air quality data showing that 2002 to 2004 data support a different designation than 2001 to 2003 data. As for the Dubois County monitor, we have no information on the monitor being incorrectly sited. Therefore EPA considers the monitor site as appropriate and the data collected as valid.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 88997]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28325]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-99204; File No. SR-FINRA-2023-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission
Action on Proposed Rule Change Relating to Dissemination of Information
on Individual Transactions in U.S. Treasury Securities and Related Fees

December 19, 2023.
    On November 2, 2023, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to (1) amend FINRA Rules 6710 and 6750 to provide
that FINRA will disseminate information on individual transactions in
U.S. Treasury Securities that are On-the-Run Nominal Coupons reported
to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (``TRACE'') on an end-
of-day basis with specified dissemination caps for large trades, and
(2) amend FINRA Rule 7730 to include U.S. Treasury Securities within
the existing fee structure for end-of-day and historic TRACE data. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on November 9, 2023.\3\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that,
within 45 days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed
rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the
self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either
approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change,
or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for
this proposed rule change is December 24, 2023. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period for Commission action. The Commission
finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which
to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient
time to consider the proposed rule change and the comments received.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, the Commission
designates February 7, 2024, as the date by which the Commission shall
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-FINRA-2023-015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98859 (November 3,
2023), 88 FR 77388. Comments received on the proposed rule change
are available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2023-015/srfinra2023015.htm.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-28325 Filed 12-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P