[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51145-51147]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0150]

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Small Business in
Transportation Coalition Petitions for Rulemaking; Transparency in
Property Broker Transactions

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

ACTION: Notice; request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA requests public comments on petitions for rulemaking to
amend certain requirements for property brokers submitted by the Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) and the Small Business
in Transportation Coalition (SBTC). OOIDA requests that FMCSA require
property brokers to provide an electronic copy of each transaction
record automatically within 48 hours after the contractual service has
been completed, and prohibit explicitly brokers from including any
provision in their contracts that requires a motor carrier to waive its
rights to access the transaction records. SBTC requests that FMCSA
prohibit brokers from coercing or otherwise requiring parties to
brokers' transactions to waive their right to review the record of the
transaction as a condition for doing business. SBTC also requests that
FMCSA adopt regulatory language indicating that brokers' contracts may
not include a stipulation or clause exempting the broker from having to
comply with the transparency requirement.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by October 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2020-0150 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Docket Operations, West
Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Docket Operations.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Submitting Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. La Tonya Mimms, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at (202)
366-4001, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services,
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0150), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2020-0150, in

the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears,
click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into the
text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting
your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then
submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

Confidential Business Information

    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
the notice contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission that constitutes CBI as ``PROPIN'' to indicate it
contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket for this notice. Submissions containing CBI should
be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington DC 20590. Any comments FMCSA receives which are not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this notice.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2020-0150 in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Docket Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

I. Background

A. Brokers' Records of Transactions; History of Current Requirements

    Section 371.3(c) of title 49 of the CFR states that ``[e]ach party
to a brokered transaction has the right to review the record of the
transaction required to be kept by these rules.'' The current
requirements under 49 CFR 371.3(c) were adopted by the Interstate
Commerce Commission (ICC) on October 17, 1980 (45 FR 68941), at 49 CFR
1045.3(c). Prior to 1980, the broker records requirements under 49 CFR
1045.3 did not include a specific provision concerning the rights of
parties to a brokered transaction to review the record of the
transaction. In its May 12, 1980 (45 FR 31140) notice of proposed
rulemaking concerning multiple broker regulations, the ICC explained
that the proposed change to section 1045(c) would allow the agency to
``. . . eliminate more complex rules found at sections 1045.5, 1045.6,
and 1045.10.'' Those requirements related to charges for brokerage
services, charges for non-brokerage services, and duties and
obligations of brokers, respectively.
    With the termination of the ICC in 1995, the regulatory oversight
of brokers was transferred to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
and the requirements under 49 CFR 1045.3 were redesignated, without
change, under 49 CFR 371.3 (61 FR 54707; October 21, 1996).
Subsequently, with the establishment of FMCSA in 2000, all motor
carrier oversight responsibilities and regulations were transferred
from FHWA to FMCSA.

B. OOIDA Petition for Rulemaking

    OOIDA requested that FMCSA amend 49 CFR 371.3 to require brokers to
provide an electronic copy of each transaction record automatically
within 48 hours after the contractual service has been completed. OOIDA
also requested that the Agency explicitly prohibit brokers from
including any provision in their contracts that requires a carrier to
waive their rights to access the transaction records required by
section 371.3.
    OOIDA explained that with freight rates reaching historic lows,
small motor carriers of property are struggling financially. Motor
carriers have expressed frustration about the lack of transparency
between brokers and motor carriers. OOIDA believes the problem is that
the regulations designed to provide transparency are routinely evaded
by brokers or simply not enforced by FMCSA. While the current rules
require brokers to keep transaction records and permit each party to a
brokered transaction to review the records, many brokers implement
hurdles they know will prevent a carrier from ever seeing this
information. For example, some brokers allow a motor carrier to access
records only at the broker's office during normal business hours, and
OOIDA argues this makes it virtually impossible for motor carriers to
access the records. Given that many business transactions now take
place electronically, OOIDA believes that the rules need to be updated
to improve transparency and prevent brokers from keeping their
transaction records from motor carriers that are not located near the
broker. The updated rules would also prevent brokers from retaliating
against carriers that request the transaction information. A copy of
the OOIDA petition is included in the docket for this notice.

C. SBTC Petition for Rulemaking

    The SBTC requested that FMCSA amend 49 CFR 371.3 to prohibit
brokers from coercing or otherwise requiring parties to a transaction
to waive their right to review the record of the transaction as a
condition of doing business. The requested language would also state
that ``No stipulation or clause in any contract shall exempt any broker
from having to comply with this rule, upon demand, by a party to the
transaction.''
    SBTC explained that freight rates have dropped drastically and that
motor carriers have reported instances of brokers engaging in
``profiteering, price gouging and low-balling tactics.'' SBTC claims
that in some instances, brokers are receiving commissions of up to 65
percent on loads due to a sudden shortage of freight and over-capacity
in the transportation market. SBTC stated that, to evade regulations,
some brokers have resorted to requiring carriers, as parties to broker
transactions, to waive their rights to obtain documents that

show the amount the shipper is paying the broker. SBTC further states
that the provisions in 49 CFR 371.3 should be strengthened to stop this
abuse, noting:

    While the SBTC does not seek to return to economic regulation to
limit the amounts or percentages brokers earn and believe this
should be left to the free market--much like we wouldn't want
carriers' revenue to suddenly be limited, transparency is essential
in making sure market forces operate ethically and fairly. We
believe FMCSA should enforce its rule and act to terminate this
abuse by big brokers in the marketplace.

    A copy of SBTC's petition is included in the docket for this
notice.

II. Request for Public Comments

    Petitions for rulemaking are governed by DOT regulations codified
at 49 CFR 5.13 and FMCSA regulations at 49 CFR 389.31 and 389.33. While
these regulations do not require FMCSA to publish a notice in the
Federal Register seeking public comments, FMCSA believes that taking
this action would provide a means of engaging stakeholders in the
process for assessing the need for a rulemaking. FMCSA therefore
requests public comments on OOIDA's and SBTC's petitions for
rulemaking. The Agency seeks public feedback concerning its statutory
authority to require that brokers disclose certain financial details
about transactions to motor carriers, and further seeks comments on
whether a regulatory action would provide an effective solution to the
problem described. Commenters are encouraged to provide responses to
the following questions:
    1. FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 14122(a) to require the form
of records to be prepared or compiled by carriers and brokers, the
Agency's right of inspection under 49 U.S.C. 14122(b), its authority to
prescribe time periods for preservation of records under 49 U.S.C.
14122(c), and its authority to require annual financial reports from
motor carriers, freight forwarders and brokers. FMCSA also has
discretionary authority to prescribe regulations to carry out the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 13101-14916 that govern the commercial aspects
of motor carrier and broker transportation. 49 U.S.C. 13301(a). Section
13301(a) is the statutory successor to former 49 U.S.C. 10321, which
the ICC relied on in 1980 in prescribing the regulations later
redesignated as part 371. In light of the significant statutory changes
reducing the scope of regulatory authority over commercial
transportation that have occurred since 1980, what statutory
provisions, if any, would be carried out by the regulatory changes
requested by the petitioners? In particular, how would a rule
restricting the rights of private parties from including certain terms
in their agreements align with the Agency's statutory authority?
    2. How would a rulemaking expanding FMCSA's role in enforcement of
the requirement mandating that brokers automatically disclose financial
details about each transaction to the respective motor carrier
transporting the load, as requested in the OOIDA and SBTC petitions,
align with the statutes identified above? What measures could FMCSA
take to ensure that regulatory action in this area is an appropriate
exercise of the Agency's authority?
    3. Are the transparency issues raised by OOIDA and SBTC limited to
small brokers or large brokers (e.g., brokers with revenues above a
certain threshold, brokers with a certain number of transactions, etc.)
or are they more widespread such that the rulemaking should cover all
brokers, regardless of size?
    4. If the transparency issues are primarily associated with large
brokers, what revenue threshold should the FMCSA consider for the
applicability of any new requirements, and how would the Agency obtain
accurate information about brokers' revenues?
    5. The OOIDA petition requested that brokers provide information to
motor carriers automatically and electronically. The Agency requests
commenters to provide their views on the most efficient and effective
means of accomplishing this request. Should each broker have, for
example, a stand-alone system with motor carriers receiving an email
from the broker after the contractual service has been completed, or
should brokers be allowed to satisfy the request with partnerships or
networks through which registered brokers would upload transaction
information which would then be automatically transmitted via the
network to the registered carrier associated with the transaction?
    6. The OOIDA petition request that FMCSA require brokers to provide
transaction information automatically within 48 hours of the completion
of the contractual services would likely require information technology
(IT) resources that are currently not in use. FMCSA requests that
commenters provide cost estimates for implementing an IT solution to
accomplish OOIDA's request, either through stand-alone systems run by
individual brokers, or systems operated by groups of brokers notifying
the individual carriers utilizing any of the brokers within the group.
    7. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the economic benefits
that would likely be achieved by motor carriers if FMCSA adopted the
rules OOIDA and SBTC requests. How much additional revenue might motor
carriers receive on a per-transaction basis?
    8. Please provide a quantitative estimate of the economic costs to
brokers or others if FMCSA adopted the rules OOIDA and SBTC request.
How much profit reduction on a per-transaction basis would brokers
experience, and what percentage of the costs would be passed through to
shippers or motor carriers?

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Heather Eilers-Bowser,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-18130 Filed 8-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 109 (Thursday, June 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26584]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11901]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0456]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal,
Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Ballard Bridge, mile 1.1, the
Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, and the University Bridge, mile 4.3, all
crossing the Lake Washington Ship Canal at Seattle, WA. The deviation
is necessary to accommodate the 4th of July fireworks event. This
deviation allows the bridges to remain in the closed-to-navigation
position to allow for the safe movement of event participants.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 9 p.m. on July 4, 2017, to 1
a.m. on July 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0456] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge
Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Seattle Department of Transportation, the
owner of the impacted drawbridges, requested a temporary deviation from
the operating schedule for the Ballard Bridge, mile 1.1, the Fremont
Bridge, mile 2.6, and the University Bridge, mile 4.3, all crossing the
Lake Washington Ship Canal at Seattle, WA, to facilitate safe passage
of participants in the 4th of July fireworks event. The Ballard Bridge
provides a vertical clearance of 29 feet in the closed-to-navigation
position; the University Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 30
feet in the closed-to-navigation position; the Fremont Bridge provides
a vertical clearance of 14 feet (31 feet of vertical clearance for the
center 36 horizontal feet) in the closed-to-navigation position.
Vertical clearances are referenced to the Mean Water Level of Lake
Washington. The normal operating schedule for the three subject bridges
is in 33 CFR 117.1051. During this deviation period, the Ballard Bridge
and University Bridge need not open to marine vessels from 10 p.m. on
July 4, 2017, to 1:00 a.m. on July 5, 2017, and the Fremont Bridge need
not open to marine vessels from 9 p.m. on July 4, 2017, to 00:30 a.m.
on July 5, 2017.
    Waterway usage on Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial
tug and barge to small pleasure craft. The Coast Guard conducted
outreach to known users of this waterway for feedback on the deviation
and received no objections. Vessels able to pass through the bridges in
the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. Both bridges
will be able to open for emergencies, and there is no immediate
alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will also inform
the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to
Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that
vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact
caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 2, 2017.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-11901 Filed 6-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13054-13055]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04398]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9785-1]

Announcement of the Board of Directors for the National
Environmental Education Foundation

AGENCY: Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education,
Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF) was
created by Section 10 of Public Law 101-619, the National
Environmental Education Act of 1990. It is a private 501 (c)(3) non-
profit organization established to promote and support education and
training as necessary tools to further environmental protection and
sustainable, environmentally sound development. It provides the common
ground upon which leaders from business and industry, all levels of
government, public interest groups, and others can work cooperatively
to expand the reach of environmental education and training programs
beyond the traditional classroom. The Foundation supports a grant
program that promotes innovative environmental education and training
programs; it also develops partnerships with government and other
organizations to administer projects that promote the development of an
environmentally literal public. The Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, as required by the terms of the Act,
announces the following appointment to the National Environmental
Education Foundation Board of Trustees. The appointee is Megan Reilly
Cayten, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Catrinka, LLC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this Notice
of Appointment, please contact Mrs. Stephanie Owens, Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of External Affairs and Environmental Education
(1701A) U.S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
General information concerning NEEF can be found on their Web site at:
http://www.neefusa.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Additional Considerations: Great care has been taken to assure that
this new appointee not only has the highest degree of expertise and
commitment, but also brings to the Board diverse points of view
relating to environmental education. This appointment is a four-year
term which may be renewed once for an additional four years pending
successful re-election by the NEEF nominating committee.
    This appointee will join the current Board members which include:
     JL Armstrong (NEEF Vice Chair), National Manger, Toyota
Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
     Raymond Ban, Executive Vice President, The Weather Channel
     Holly Cannon, Principal, Beveridge and Diamond, P.C.
     Phillipe Cousteau, Co-Founder and CEO, EarthEcho
International
     Manuel Alberto Diaz, Partner, Lydecker Diaz, L.L.P.
     Arthur Gibson (NEEF Chair), Vice President, Environment,
Health and Safety, Baxter Healthcare Corporation
     Trish Silber, President, Aliniad Consulting Partners, Inc.
     Bradley Smith, Dean, Huxley College of the Environment,
Western Washington University
     Kenneth Strassner (NEEF Treasurer), Vice President, Global
Environment, Safety, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs, Kimberly-Clark
Corporation
     Diane Wood (NEEF Secretary), President, National
Environmental Education Foundation
     Decker Anstrom, Former CEO, The Weather Channel Companies
     Wonya Lucas, Former CEO, TV One
    Background: Section 10(a) of the National Environmental Education
Act of 1990 mandates a National Environmental Education Foundation. The
Foundation is established in order to extend the contribution of
environmental education and training to meeting critical environmental
protection needs, both in this country and internationally; to
facilitate the cooperation, coordination, and contribution of public
and private resources to create an environmentally advanced educational
system; and to foster an open and effective partnership among Federal,
State, and local government, business, industry, academic institutions,
community based environmental groups, and international organizations.
    The Foundation is a charitable and nonprofit corporation whose
income is exempt from tax, and donations to which are tax deductible to
the same extent as those organizations listed pursuant to section
501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The Foundation is not an
agency or establishment of the United States. The purposes of the
Foundation are--

    (A) Subject to the limitation contained in the final sentence of
subsection (d) herein, to encourage, accept, leverage, and
administer private gifts for the benefit of, or in connection with,
the environmental education and training activities and services of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency;
    (B) To conduct such other environmental education activities as
will further the development of an environmentally conscious and
responsible public, a well-trained and environmentally literate
workforce, and an environmentally advanced educational system;
    (C) To participate with foreign entities and individuals in the
conduct and coordination of activities that will further
opportunities for environmental education and training to address
environmental issues and problems involving the United States and
Canada or Mexico.

    The Foundation develops, supports, and/or operates programs and
projects to educate and train educational and environmental
professionals, and to assist them in the development and delivery of
environmental education and training programs and studies.
    The Foundation has a governing Board of Directors (hereafter
referred to in this section as `the Board'), which consists of 13
directors, each of whom shall be knowledgeable or experienced in the
environment, education and/or training. The Board oversees the
activities of the Foundation and assures that the activities of the
Foundation are consistent with the environmental and education goals
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency and with the
intents and purposes of the Act. The membership of the Board, to the
extent practicable, represents diverse points of view relating to
environmental education and training. Members of the Board are
appointed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Within 90 days of the date of the enactment of the National
Environmental Education Act, and as appropriate thereafter, the
Administrator will publish in the Federal Register an announcement of
appointments of Directors of the Board. Such appointments become final
and effective 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. The
directors are appointed for terms of 4 years. The Administrator shall
appoint an individual to serve as a director in the event of a vacancy
on the Board within 60 days of said vacancy in the manner in which the
original appointment was made. No individual may serve more than 2
consecutive terms as a director.

    Dated: February 14, 2013.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

Megan Reilly Cayten

    Ms. Cayten has been Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of
CATRINKA, LLC since 2012.
    Ms. Cayten was Vice President of Alinda Capital Partners since
2011, Consultant of Global Water Challenge since 2008, Vice President
of Citigroup since 2007, Associate of Endesa Internacional since 2003,
Vice President of AES Honduras since 2002, Development Manager of AES
Corporation since 2000, Policy Director and Assistant to the Chairwoman
of Citizens Party since 1998 and Legislative Aide to Margaret Ng Ngoi-
yee since 1997.
    Moderator, Clinton Global Initiative. She is a passionate believer
in the power of public-private partnerships to effect change. She
serves as a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
    Ms. Cayten earned a master's degree in business administration from
Harvard Business School and a bachelor's degree in History from Yale
University. She speaks Spanish, French and Mandarin Chinese.
    Lives with husband, Christopher, in New York City and mother of two
young children.

[FR Doc. 2013-04398 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74611-74612]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26473]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD23-3-000]

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Preliminary
Determination of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and
Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

    On November 23, 2022, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
filed a notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower
facility, pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The
proposed Clackamas Fish Hatchery Hydroelectric Station Project would
have an installed capacity of 175 kilowatts (kW), and would be located
along a water supply pipeline at the applicant's fish hatchery in
Estacada, Clackamas County, Oregon.
    Applicant Contact: Andrew Benjamin, 403 Portway Avenue, Suite 300,
Hood River, OR 97031,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The project
would consist of: (1) a 175-kW turbine generating unit to be installed
within an existing building, (2) intake and discharge pipes connecting
to the existing water supply pipeline, and (3) appurtenant facilities.
The proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of
approximately 1,000,000 kilowatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all the criteria shown in the table below.

                          Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Satisfies  (Y/
              Statutory provision                                 Description                           N)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A)...............................  The conduit the facility uses is a tunnel,                    Y
                                                 canal, pipeline, aqueduct, flume, ditch, or
                                                 similar manmade water conveyance that is
                                                 operated for the distribution of water for
                                                 agricultural, municipal, or industrial
                                                 consumption and not primarily for the
                                                 generation of electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i)............................  The facility is constructed, operated, or                     Y
                                                 maintained for the generation of electric
                                                 power and uses for such generation only the
                                                 hydroelectric potential of a non-federally
                                                 owned conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii)...........................  The facility has an installed capacity that                   Y
                                                 does not exceed 40 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii)..........................  On or before August 9, 2013, the facility is                  Y
                                                 not licensed, or exempted from the licensing
                                                 requirements of Part I of the FPA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed Clackamas Fish Hatchery
Hydroelectric Station Project will not alter the primary purpose of the
conduit. Therefore, based upon the above criteria, Commission staff
preliminarily determines that the operation of the project described
above satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower
facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted from
licensing.
    Comments and Motions To Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 30
days from the issuance date of this notice. Deadline for filing motions
to intervene is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with

the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210 and
385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may send a
paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. A copy of all other filings in reference
to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all
persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this
proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: The Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the internet through the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
(i.e., CD23-3) in the docket number field to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. Copies of the notice of
intent can be obtained directly from the applicant. For assistance,
call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected]. For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 30, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-26473 Filed 12-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 37744-37745]
[DOCID:fr11jy07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-495-000]

CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission Corporation;
Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Tariff

July 3, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 27, 2007, CenterPoint Energy Mississippi
River Transmission Corporation (MRT), tendered for filing as part of
its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff
sheets to be effective July 1, 2007:

Sixtieth Revised Sheet No. 5.
Sixtieth Revised Sheet No. 6.
Fifty-Seventh Revised Sheet No. 7.

    MRT states that these tariff sheets reflect the termination of a
supplemental adjustment percentage that went into effect on May 1, 2006
as a result of an Uncontested Settlement Agreement related to MRT's
Annual Fuel and LUFG adjustment filing in Docket No. RP05-691-000.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.

There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables
subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to
a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service,
please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll
free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-13452 Filed 7-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66648-66649]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23445]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EG16-155-000.
    Applicants: FL Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: FL Solar 1, LLC. submits Notice of Self-Certification
of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5127.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: EG16-156-000.
    Applicants: AL Solar A, LLC.
    Description: AL Solar A, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification
of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2562-001.
    Applicants: Nicolis, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Co Tenancy Agreement to
be effective 9/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5053.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2563-001.
    Applicants: Nicolis, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Shared Use Agreement to
be effective 9/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2564-001.
    Applicants: Tropico, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Shared Use Agreement to
be effective 9/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2565-001.
    Applicants: Tropico, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Co Tenancy Agreement to
be effective 9/6/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2631-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 27--Annual
BPA-GTA Update 2016 to be effective 10/31/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160920-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2632-000.
    Applicants: Trans Bay Cable LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Appendix I of
TO Tariff to be effective 11/23/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160920-5140.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2633-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of certain
designated Rate Schedules to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2634-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3247 AEM Wind/SPS Facilities
Construction Agreement to be effective 9/12/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2635-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Description: Request for Waiver of Entergy Louisiana, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/20/16.
    Accession Number: 20160920-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/11/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2636-000.
    Applicants: Inland Empire Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Request for Category 1
Seller Status to be effective 9/22/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2637-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Modifications to NITSA/NOA
between PNM and Tri-State to be effective 9/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2638-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 4540, Queue Position NQ132 to be effective 8/22/2016.
    Filed Date: 9/21/16.
    Accession Number: 20160921-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/12/16.

    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: September 21, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23445 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 227)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62243-62249]
[DOCID:fr27no09-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0664; FRL-8985-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois; Indiana; Chicago and Evansville Nonattainment Areas;
Determination of Attainment of the Fine Particle Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
Illinois-Indiana (``Chicago'') and Evansville, Indiana nonattainment
areas have attained the 1997 fine particle (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These determinations are based
upon quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data that
show that the areas have monitored attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2006 to 2008 monitoring period.
Currently available preliminary data for 2009 are consistent with
continued attainment of the standard. As a result of these
determinations, the requirements for these areas to submit an
attainment demonstration and associated reasonably available control
measures (RACM), a reasonable further progress plan (RFP), contingency
measures, and other State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions related
to attainment of the standard are suspended for so long as the areas
continue to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0664. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (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 through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Melissa M.
Barnhart,

Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5
office.

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

I. What Actions Is EPA Taking?
II. What Did EPA Propose?
    A. Chicago Area
    B. Evansville Area
III. What Comments Did EPA Receive and What Are EPA's Responses?
IV. What Is the Effect of These Actions?
V. When Are These Actions Effective?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Actions Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is determining that the Chicago nonattainment area (including
portions in Illinois and Indiana) and the Evansville, Indiana
nonattainment area have attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These
determinations are based upon quality-assured and certified ambient air
monitoring data that show that the areas have monitored attainment of
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 2006-2008 monitoring period.
Preliminary data available to date for 2009 are consistent with
continued attainment of the standard.

II. What Did EPA Propose?

    EPA proposed that the Chicago area (including portions in Illinois
and Indiana) and the Evansville, Indiana area have attained the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA published these proposed determinations on
September 24, 2009, at 74 FR 48690. Further details of EPA's review are
available in the proposed rule.

A. Chicago Area

    EPA reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Chicago area
in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N. All
data considered have been recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database. The review primarily addressed air quality data collected in
the three-year period from 2006 to 2008.
    Of sites with data to be compared to the annual standard, the
highest three-year average annual concentration for 2006 to 2008 in the
Chicago area was recorded at the Schiller Park site, site number 17-
031-3103, observing a three-year average annual concentration of 14.6
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\). As discussed in the proposed
rule, even the sites that are not for comparison to the annual standard
are observing average concentrations below the standard. The highest
98th percentile 24-hour average concentration is recorded at the McCook
site, site number 17-031-1016, recording a three-year average 98th
percentile 24-hour average concentration of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Thus, all
sites in the area have three-year average annual PM2.5
concentrations below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and three-year average 98th
percentile 24-hour average concentrations far below the 1997 standard
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\.\1\ See 74 FR 48692, including footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA erroneously reported the annual average for the Burr
Street site, site number 18-089-0026, as 14.9 [mu]g/m\3\; the
correct value is 14.8 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further consideration of concentrations at Cicero, site 17-031-
6005, was necessary because data at this site do not meet completeness
requirements, and because the site monitored a violation for the most
recent three years with complete data, i.e. 2005 to 2007. A detailed
review of concentrations at the Cicero site in relation to
concentrations at other similar sites in the Chicago area is provided
in the proposed rule. Based on this review, EPA stated its belief that
the Cicero site, like other sites in the area, is attaining the
PM2.5 standards for the 2006 to 2008 period. 74 FR 48692-
48693.
    In addition, the averages of available 2009 data from all monitors
still operating in the Chicago nonattainment area are at or below the
average for corresponding periods in 2006 to 2008, and the 98th
percentile of available 24-hour average concentrations is again more
than 30 [mu]g/m\3\ below the pertinent standard. Therefore, the
available data for 2009 are consistent with the finding, based on 2006
to 2008 data, that the Chicago area is attaining the 1997
PM2.5 standards.

B. Evansville Area

    EPA reviewed the ambient air monitoring data for the Evansville
area in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 50 Appendix N.
All data considered have been recorded in EPA's AQS database. The
review primarily addressed air quality data collected at six monitoring
sites in the three-year period from 2006 to 2008.
    The highest annual average PM2.5 concentration in the
Evansville nonattainment area for the 2006-2008 monitoring period was
13.7 [mu]g/m\3\, which occurred both at the Jasper Golf site (site 18-
037-0005, in Dubois County) and at the Evansville/West Mill Road site
(site 18-163-0012, in Vanderburgh County). The Evansville area also has
four additional monitors with data for 2006 to 2008, at which the 2006-
2008 three-year average annual concentrations ranged from 13.4 to 13.6
[mu]g/m\3\. The average 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations ranged
from 28 to 32 [mu]g/m\3\. Thus, the Evansville area is observing
concentrations well below the 1997 standards of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and 65
[mu]g/m\3\, respectively.
    The proposed rule notes a completeness criterion that a site record
valid data for at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for
each quarter within the applicable three-year period. See 40 CFR 50
Appendix N 4.1. Three sites in the Evansville area, namely the
Evansville/West Mill Road site in Vanderburgh County and the Jasper
Golf site and the Jasper Sport Complex site in Dubois County, did not
meet this completeness criterion. For these sites, as explained in the
proposal (74 FR 48694), EPA conducted a conservative data substitution
analysis, assessing whether the site would still have observed
attainment under the hypothesis that the monitor on the days of missed
samples might have recorded the highest concentration that the monitor
observed during the applicable quarter during the 2006 to 2008
period.\2\ Both the Jasper Golf site and the Evansville/West Mill Road
site had one or more quarters in 2006 to 2008 that measured less than
75 percent complete data, but in both cases the substitution analysis
indicates that the monitors would have shown attainment even with
conservative assumptions about the missing data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This conservative substitution test to confirm a passing
design value that is based on incomplete data is explained in the
EPA guidance document ``Guideline On Data Handling Conventions For
The PM NAAQS,'' EPA-454/R-99-008, April 1999, at page 16. (http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the Jasper Sport Complex site (site 18-037-0004, in Dubois
County), the data substitution approach using the highest concentration
that the monitor observed during the applicable quarter during the 2006
to 2008 period did not yield a firm conclusion as to whether the site
is attaining the annual standard. This site began operation in early
2006 (January 29, 2006), and so earlier (e.g. 2005 to 2007) three-year
averages were not available. As EPA explained in its proposal (74 FR
48694), another method available to evaluate these data is to examine
the data at this site in relation to data at other similar sites in the
area, to judge the likelihood that the monitor

would have shown attainment had it collected complete data. The
available data at this site have always indicated annual average
concentrations below 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and 24-hour concentrations below
65 [mu]g/m\3\. The available data at this site are similar to the data
at other nearby sites in the area. Therefore, EPA believes this site,
like the other sites in the Evansville area, is attaining the
standards. In addition, all sites with data from 2005 to 2007 recorded
measurements showing attainment for that period as well. Therefore, EPA
proposed to find that all sites in the Evansville area, including sites
that did not meet the 75 percent completeness requirement, are now
meeting the 1997 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50 Appendix N 4.1 and 4.2.
    In addition, EPA examined data from the first half of 2009. For
each site, the average of available 2009 data is at or below the
average for corresponding periods in 2006 to 2008 and the 98th
percentile of available 24-hour average concentrations is again more
than 30 [micro]g/m\3\ below the pertinent standard. Therefore, EPA
observed that the available data for 2009 are consistent with the
finding, based on 2006 to 2008 data, that the Evansville area is
attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards.

III. What Comments Did EPA Receive and What Are EPA's Responses?

    EPA received a total of four sets of comments in response to these
actions, including comments by Indiana Steel Environmental Group
(ISEG), the Northwest Indiana Forum, Valley Watch, Inc., and one
anonymous commenter. ISEG and the Northwest Indiana Forum supported
EPA's proposed determinations of attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Chicago and Evansville areas. In this
section, EPA responds to the adverse comments received in response to
the September 24, 2009, proposed rulemaking. EPA did not receive any
adverse comments specifically directed at its proposed determination of
attainment for the Chicago area.
    Comment: Valley Watch requests that EPA accept its ``comments
objecting to EPA's proposal to redesignate the Evansville, IN area to
`attainment' of the 1997 standard for PM2.5.'' Valley Watch
also submitted to this rulemaking the same comments that it submitted
to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) in March
2008, at a State hearing on the State's planned petition for
redesignation of the Evansville area. Many of those comments include
contentions about the health effects of PM2.5, the status of
the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), and the potential impact of new
power plants that Valley Watch believes will increase emissions of fine
particulate matter precursors. Valley Watch also expressed its concern
that the recent economic downturn is responsible for temporary
decreases in concentrations of PM2.5, and thus the ``low''
levels of particulate matter being measured are not due to permanent
and enforceable emissions limitations.
    Response: As EPA stated in its proposal (74 FR 48695), EPA in this
rulemaking is merely determining that the Evansville area is attaining
the 1997 PM2.5 standards, based on the most recent three
years of quality assured air monitoring data. EPA is not redesignating
the area under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is
not evaluating whether any of the other criteria for redesignation, as
set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, have been met. The only
issue before EPA in this rulemaking is whether the air quality
monitored in the area meets the 1997 PM2.5 standards.
Therefore, any comments that address other issues pertaining to
redesignation, and that do not address the question of whether, as a
matter of air quality, the area is attaining the 1997 PM2.5
standards, are not relevant to this rulemaking. For example, the causes
of air quality levels--whether they are due to permanent and
enforceable emissions reductions and whether such reductions will be
maintained over time--are not addressed in a determination of
attainment. Nor is there any relevance for this rulemaking of
commenter's assertions regarding the impact of CAIR or other regulatory
regimes or emissions from prospective new power plants. If, in the
future, EPA determines that the area has lapsed out of attainment with
the standards, EPA would take action to withdraw its determination of
attainment. Thus, comments addressing issues other than whether air
quality currently meets the 1997 PM2.5 standards are not
relevant to this determination of attainment.
    Comment: Valley Watch contends that there are ``huge gaps'' in the
data for 2006-2007, and that this action should not go forward until
more data are collected. The commenter claims that gaps of 13 percent
and 16 percent occurred in 2006 and 2007, respectively, when
``mysteriously or perhaps fraudulently data seemed to just disappear at
times when fine particle levels were elevating at other regional
monitors.'' Valley Watch submitted these comments to Indiana on March
27, 2008, in response to a State solicitation of comments on a
prospective request for redesignation of the Evansville area; Valley
Watch then attached those comments to its comments on EPA's proposed
clean data determination.
    The commenter focuses on data at the Evansville Civic Center
monitor (site number 18-163-0006). The commenter in particular notes
for this site that ``[i]n June, six out of ten measurements are
missing. In August, five out ten measurements are also missing.''
    Response: The Evansville Civic Center site has two operating
instruments. The shortfall in data collection noted by the commenter
occurred in 2007 for one of these instruments (``Instrument 1'').
However, many of the days lacking valid data at Instrument 1 had valid
data at Instrument 2. Since both instruments collect equally valid
data, EPA views valid data from Instrument 2 as a suitable substitute
for missing data from Instrument 1, and in fact EPA treats the site as
having valid data for such days.\3\ In particular for June and August
of 2007, EPA finds that seven of the ten scheduled sampling days in
June 2007 and nine of the eleven scheduled sampling days in August 2007
had valid data. Similarly for the full year, using data from Instrument
2 where data are missing from Instrument 1, EPA finds for 2007 for
example that this site has valid data for 92 percent of the days, not
84 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The use of data from a second instrument in place of missing
data from the first instrument is explained in the EPA guidance
document ``Guideline On Data Handling Conventions For The PM
NAAQS,'' EPA-454/R-99-008, April 1999, at page 16. (http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/pmfinal.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter expresses concern that the days it considers to lack
data may disproportionately be days with high concentrations. Indeed,
for the six days in the two months at the site especially in question
(June and August 2007 at the Civic Center site) for which Instrument 2
obtained valid data and Instrument 1 did not, the average concentration
was 20.0 [mu]g/m\3\. The commenter may believe that availability of
more complete data and inclusion of that data in the calculation of
average concentrations at the Civic Center would have yielded a
computed violation. However, in EPA's view, a majority of the days that
the commenter considers to lack data in fact have data, and EPA
included those data in its computation of average concentrations. The
results, as reported in the proposed rulemaking, are well below the
applicable standard. EPA has no reason to believe that the days without
data on average would have had concentrations higher (or lower) than
the average for the applicable quarter, e.g., that the days without
data in the third quarter of 2007

at this site on average would have had concentrations higher than the
quarterly average of 18.27 [mu]g/m\3\, much less that the data on
average would have been enough higher to yield a three-year average
greater than 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Inasmuch as the combined data set from
the two instruments meets the data completeness requirements of 40 CFR
part 50 Appendix N 4.1(b), EPA believes that sufficient data are
available to have adequate confidence in the result, i.e., that the
site is attaining the standards.
    EPA computes annual average concentration through a multi-step
process in which it first computes quarterly average concentrations and
then computes each year's average concentration as an average of the
four quarterly average concentrations. This process assures that the
four quarters are equally represented in the computation of the annual
average, so that differences in the data completeness for different
quarters do not influence the computed annual average. EPA agrees that
summer concentrations in Evansville tend to be higher than
concentrations at other times of year, but EPA does not expect a modest
number of missing summer values (e.g., for the Civic Center site in
2007, 3 values in June and 2 values in August) to introduce any
significant potential for bias in the average values for the respective
quarters that are used in computing the annual average.
    The proposed rulemaking addressed a number of issues relating to
data completeness. The proposal notes EPA's completeness criterion that
a site have valid data for at least 75 percent of the scheduled samples
in all twelve quarters of the applicable three years, reflecting EPA's
view that this quantity of data provides an adequate representation of
each quarter, i.e., EPA has adequate confidence that a complete data
set would not be expected to show a significantly different average (or
peak) concentration. The proposed rulemaking also addresses three sites
(not including the Civic Center site; instead including the West Mill
Road site in Vanderburgh County (site 18-163-0012) and the Jasper
Sports Complex and Jasper Golf sites (sites 18-037-0004 and 18-037-
0005) in Dubois County) that had quarters with less than 75 percent
data capture, describing the data substitution analyses that EPA
performed to assess whether it is plausible that complete data would
have shown these sites to violate the standards.
    The commenter did not comment on any of this discussion in the
proposed rulemaking. Specifically, the commenter did not comment on
EPA's 75 percent completeness criterion, and the commenter did not
comment on the analyses EPA conducted for sites for which that
criterion was unmet. Indeed, by excluding the Civic Center site from
its list of sites not meeting this completeness criterion, EPA made
clear that it viewed the Civic Center as meeting this completeness
criterion, and yet the commenter did not expressly challenge this EPA
view. Furthermore, the commenter made no mention of the Dubois County
sites, to which a majority of the Evansville area data completeness
issues apply. As a result, EPA has no reason to change its views on the
completeness criterion, the application of that criterion to the
Evansville area, the analyses of Evansville air quality data, or the
conclusion that EPA has adequate confidence that the Evansville area is
attaining the 1997 air quality standards. EPA finds there is no
evidence that data have ``fraudulently'' or ``mysteriously''
disappeared, as commenter contends. Valley Watch's comments on the
State's redesignation request were submitted prior to the time that
calendar year data for 2008 were recorded and quality-assured and
certified. After Valley Watch's comments on the redesignation request
were submitted, more data have been acquired and evaluated for purposes
of EPA's determination of attainment. Thus Valley Watch's analysis
contained only a partial and outdated review of the relevant data. EPA
finds no need for an additional ``independent'' analysis that was
requested by the commenter in its comments on redesignation.
    Comment: Valley Watch, in its March, 2008 comments on the request
for redesignation that IDEM had proposed, included criticisms of 2004
and 2005 data, and requested that the redesignation be stopped ``until
at least another year of data is collected'' in order to see air
quality trends.
    Response: EPA is making its determination of attainment based on
2006-2008 quality-assured data, rather than 2004-2006 data. Although in
fact EPA believes that Evansville attained the standards based on 2004
to 2006 data, air quality for that period are not relevant to EPA's
determination that the area is currently attaining the standards. The
commenter prepared the substance of his analysis of the data in March
2008, and did not update his review to include the more recent data
used by EPA, or EPA's evaluation and conclusions with respect to those
data. It has now been more than a year and a half since Valley Watch
submitted its March 2008 comments, and more than another year of data
has been collected which shows continued attainment of the
PM2.5 standards. Thus commenter's wish for another year of
quality-assured data has been satisfied.
    Comment: The commenter includes a series of comments related to
criteria for redesignation that do not bear on the question of whether
or not the area is currently attaining the standard. The commenter
contends that ``Utility executives that Valley Watch has consulted
indicate that throughout 2008 and 2009 electrical generation demand has
reduced nearly 25% in the region.'' The commenter argues that this
decrease in demand would yield a commensurate reduction in the
formation of fine particles and that economic recovery will result in a
rise of electrical production and fine particle levels; thus this
decrease ``cannot be considered as federally enforceable for
redesignation purposes.'' Further, ``[n]umerous, already under
construction, approved or soon to be approved new coal plants will add
to an already fragile `attainment' of the NAAQS for fine particles.''
    Response: EPA's determination here is limited to a finding that the
area's air quality currently meets the 1997 PM2.5 standards.
Unlike the case for redesignations, EPA need not evaluate whether the
air quality improvement is due to permanent and enforceable reductions,
and projections as to whether the air quality standards will be
maintained in the future also are not germane to EPA's determination of
attainment here. Moreover, the future impact of new sources and
potential new sources on the area has and will be assessed in the
context of permitting of those sources. For the reasons set forth in
the discussions of EPA's review of the data in this final rulemaking
and in its proposal, EPA does not agree with the commenter's
contentions that currently monitored levels are too close to the 1997
standards for EPA to make determinations of attainment, or that the
data recorded at the monitors are ``skewed low''. In the future, if EPA
determines that the area no longer is attaining the standards, EPA will
take action, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, to withdraw its
determination.
    Comment: The commenter states that ``EPA's Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee (CASAC), a blue ribbon panel of scientists,
recommended in 2005 and 2006 that the annual NAAQS for fine particles
be set at a level as low as 13 [micro]g/m\3\ and no higher than 14
[micro]g/m\3\.'' In addition, ``[a]s further proof that residents of
this area are forced to breathe unhealthy air, a study conducted by the
Partnership for Healthcare Information through the

University of Southern Indiana found that `In 1996, Vanderburgh County
had a hospitalization rate of 51.7 per 10,000 versus 32.2 per 10,000 in
Allen County for the 0-3 age group; for the 4-8 year old group,
Vanderburgh County's rate was 35.2 while Allen County's rate was 10.5;
and the 9-13 year group showed 40.2 for Vanderburgh County and 8.3 for
Allen County.' ''
    Response: This rulemaking addresses whether air quality in the
Evansville area is meeting the 1997 PM2.5 air quality
standards, based on the most recent quality-assured monitoring data. It
is not relevant to this determination that EPA has subsequently lowered
the 24-hour standard or that the commenter believes EPA should have set
the annual standard lower. Challenges to the PM2.5 standards
have been raised in other proceedings, and are not properly brought
here. Moreover, the historical study of health indicators in
Vanderburgh and Allen Counties, which cites to information collected in
1996, and the question of whether the current air quality standards are
health protective, are not relevant to the only question at issue here,
which is whether the Evansville area is meeting the 1997
PM2.5 standards that are in place.
    Based on the reasons previously discussed, EPA continues to believe
that determinations of attainment are warranted for the Chicago
(Illinois and Indiana) and Evansville (Indiana) areas.
    Comment: Valley Watch makes numerous allegations reflecting a view
that the Evansville data and the officials responsible for collecting
and reporting these data are not to be trusted. These comments include
allegations that the local agency may have avoided collecting data
particularly on days with high concentrations. The commenter seeks
investigation of a discrepancy between the value reported by the local
agency versus the value reported by the State for July 7, 2007. The
commenter believes that EPA's computation involves rounding of a value
above the standard to a value found to meet the standard; the commenter
finds this a problematic ``bureaucratic spin.'' The commenter contends
that, given the missing data, the commenter finds the values too close
to the standard to be sure that the area is meeting the standard.
    Response: The commenter provides no credible evidence to justify
the allegations that are lodged. Most relevantly here, EPA finds no
reason to question the data that the State has certified as accurate,
and EPA has no grounds for believing that the collected data are
unrepresentative of the quarters during which they were collected. EPA
used values reported in the AQS, not the values in either of the
reports cited by the commenter, and, in any case, EPA finds that July
7, 2007 was not a scheduled sampling day and evidently no concentration
measurements were made.\4\ The comments regarding rounding and being
close to the standard are not relevant to data from 2006 to 2008, which
show annual average concentrations at all sites (with or without
rounding as dictated under Appendix N) being more than 1 [mu]g/m\3\
below the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The monitor at issue with regard to July 7, 2007 (at site
number 18-163-0012) was operating on an every third day schedule in
2007. The dates of sampling for this schedule are set by EPA so that
the same days are monitored in all locations, and are posted at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/cal2007.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: An anonymous commenter stated the view that ``cities are
absolutely disgusting,'' and that ``they are getting way out of
control. We need to do whatever it takes to clean them up!''
    Response: This comment does not address the actual air quality
levels for the Chicago and Evansville areas or how those levels compare
to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. It is thus not germane to whether
the Chicago and Evansville areas are attaining those standards.

IV. What Is the Effect of These Actions?

    On the basis of this review, EPA is determining that the Chicago
area and the Evansville area have attained the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS based on 2006-2008 data. In addition, monitoring data for 2009
that are available to date in the EPA AQS database, but not yet
certified, indicate that these areas continues to attain the 1997
PM2.5.
    Under the provisions of EPA's PM2.5 implementation rule
(see 40 CFR 51.1004(c)), the requirements for Illinois and Indiana to
submit attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFPs, contingency
measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Chicago and Evansville PM2.5
nonattainment areas are suspended for so long as the areas continue to
attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    As further discussed below, these determinations will: (1) For the
Chicago and Evansville nonattainment areas, suspend the requirements
for the submittal of attainment demonstrations and associated RACM,
RFPs, contingency measures, and any other planning SIP revisions
related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) continue
until such time, if any, that EPA subsequently determines that one of
the areas has violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) be separate
from, and not influence or otherwise affect, any future designation
determination or requirements for the Chicago and Evansville areas
based on the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS; and (4) remain in effect
regardless of whether EPA designates these areas as nonattainment areas
for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, as
described below, any such final determination is not equivalent to the
redesignation of the area to attainment based on the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking
in the Federal Register, that either or both areas have violated the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the
specific requirements, set forth at 40 CFR 51.1004(c), would no longer
exist for the pertinent area(s), and EPA would take action to withdraw
the determination and direct the pertinent area(s) to address the
suspended requirements.
    The determinations that the air quality data show attainment of the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS are not equivalent to the redesignation of
the areas to attainment. These actions do not constitute a
redesignation to attainment under 107(d)(3) of the CAA, because we do
not yet have approved maintenance plans for the areas as required under
175A of the CAA, nor have we determined whether the areas have met the
other requirements for redesignation. The designation status of the
areas will remain nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
until such time as EPA determines that the areas meet the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment.
    These actions are limited to determinations that the Chicago and
Evansville areas have attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS became effective on July 18, 1997 (62 FR
36852) and are set forth at 40 CFR 50.7.
    The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, which became effective on December
18, 2006 (71 FR 61144), are set forth at 40 CFR 50.13. EPA has recently
determined that the Chicago and Evansville areas meet the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and has designated the areas as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS. 74 FR 58688, 58726-58729
(November 13, 2009). The status of the 2006 annual NAAQS designations
is described in the 2006 24-hour NAAQS designations notice. 74 FR
58690-58691. However, designations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
are independent of today's determinations that the Chicago and
Evansville areas are attaining the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    If the Chicago and Evansville areas continue to attain the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for Illinois and Indiana to
submit attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans,
contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs related to attainment
of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in these areas would remain
suspended.

V. When Are These Actions Effective?

    EPA finds that there is good cause for these determinations to
become effective on the date of publication of these actions in the
Federal Register, because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due
to the nature of the actions. The expedited effective date for these
actions is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides
that rule actions may become effective less than 30 days after
publication if the rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves
a restriction,'' and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and published with the rule.'' As noted
above, these determinations of attainment will result in a suspension
of the requirements for Chicago and Evansville to submit an attainment
demonstration, a RFP, section 172(c)(9) contingency measures, and any
other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS for so long as the area continues to attain the PM2.5
NAAQS. The suspension of these requirements is sufficient reason to
allow an expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1). In addition, the suspension of the obligations of Illinois
and Indiana to make submissions for these requirements provides good
cause to make this rule effective on the date of publication of this
action in the Federal Register, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The
purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is
to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their behavior and
prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as here, the final
rule suspends requirements rather than imposing obligations, affected
parties, such as the Chicago and Evansville areas, do not need time to
adjust and prepare before the rule takes effect.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action makes a
determination based on air quality data and results in the suspension
of certain Federal requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule makes a determination
based on air quality data, and results in the suspension of certain
Federal requirements, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal applications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely makes a determination
based on air quality data and results in the suspension of certain
Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it determines that air quality in the affected area is
meeting Federal standards.
    The requirements of 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply because it
would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when determining the
attainment status of an area, to use voluntary consensus standards in
place of promulgated air quality standards and monitoring procedures to
otherwise satisfy the provisions of the CAA. This rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paper
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule, pertaining
to the determinations of attainment of the fine particle standard for
the Chicago (Illinois and Indiana) and Evansville (Indiana) areas,
involves determinations of attainment based on air quality data and
will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any communities in the area, including
minority and low-income communities.
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because there is no federally recognized Indian country located in the
states, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing these actions and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rules in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. These actions are not ``major rules'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of these actions must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals
for the appropriate circuit by January 26, 2010. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of these final rules does not
affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. These actions may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 18, 2009.
Walter W. Kovalick Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart O--Illinois

0
2. Section 52.725 is amended by adding paragraph (j) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.725  Control strategy: Particulates.

* * * * *
    (j) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of November
27, 2009, that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN PM2.5
nonattainment area has attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This
determination, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further
progress, contingency measures, and other plan elements related to
attainment of the standard for as long as this area continues to meet
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Subpart P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.776 is amended by adding paragraph(s) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.776  Control strategy: Particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (s) Determination of Attainment. EPA has determined, as of November
27, 2009, that the Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL-IN PM2.5
nonattainment area, which includes Lake and Porter counties in IN, and
the Evansville nonattainment area have attained the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. These determinations, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.1004(c), suspend the requirements for these areas to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control
measures, reasonable further progress, contingency measures, and other
plan elements related to attainment of the standard for as long as the
area(s) continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

[FR Doc. E9-28256 Filed 11-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P