[Federal Register: January 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 8)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 1716-1723]
[DOCID:fr13ja10-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0024; FRL-9097-2]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on August 19,
2009, and concerns a local fee rule that applies to major sources of
volatile organic compound and nitrogen oxide emissions in the San
Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area. Under authority of the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously
approves a local rule that regulates these emission sources and directs
California to correct rule deficiencies.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on February 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0024 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4124<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
    A. Commenting Parties
    B. Summary of Comments and EPA Responses
    1. EPA Response to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Letter
    2. Consideration of Rule 3170 as an Alternative Program
    3. Exemption for Units That Begin Operation After the Attainment
Year
    4. Exemption for ``Clean Emission Units''
    5. Defining the Baseline Period as the Attainment Year and the
Immediately Preceding Year
    6. Allowing Averaging Over 2-5 Years To Establish Baseline
Emissions
    7. Stationary Versus Mobile Sources
    8. Impacts of Rule 3170 on Small Businesses
    9. Unintended Consequences of Rule 3170
    10. Incorrect Statement of Baseline Emissions
    11. Ambiguity on Fees for Both VOCs and NOX
    12. Definition of ``Major Source''
    13. Sunset Provision for Section 185 Fees
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On August 19, 2009 (74 FR 41826), EPA proposed a limited approval
and limited disapproval of the following rule that was submitted for
incorporation into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                 Rule No.              Rule title               Adopted      Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..............................         3170   Federally Mandated Ozone           05/16/02      08/06/02
                                                       Nonattainment Fee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed a limited approval because we determined that this rule
improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA
requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because
some rule provisions do not fully meet the statutory CAA section 185
requirement. These provisions include the following:
    1. An exemption for units that begin operation after the attainment
year.
    2. An exemption for any ``clean emission unit.''
    3. The definition of the baseline period as two consecutive years.
    4. The allowance of averaging baseline emissions over a period of
2-5 years ``if those years are determined by the APCO as more
representative of normal source operation.''
    5. An inappropriate definition of the term ``Major Source.'' Our
proposed action contains more information on the basis for this
rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

A. Commenting Parties

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received the following 12 comment letters from
11 parties:
    1. American Chemistry Council, letter from Lorraine Gershman, dated
September 18, 2009.
    2. American Petroleum Institute, letter from Ted Steichen, dated
September 18, 2009.
    3. Association of Irritated Residents, letter from Brent Newell,
Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment, dated September 18, 2009.
    4. California Small Business Alliance, letter from William R. La
Marr, dated August 11, 2009.
    5. The Clean Energy Group, letter from Michael Bradley, dated
September 18, 2009.
    6. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, letter from
Stephen R. Maguin and Gregory M. Adams, dated August 11, 2009.
    7. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, letter from
Stephen R. Maguin and Gregory M. Adams, dated September 18, 2009.
    8. EarthJustice, letter from Paul Cort, dated September 18, 2009.
    9. San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, letter from Seyed Sadredin,
dated September 17, 2009.
    10. The Section 185 Working Group, letter from Jason C. Moore,
Baker Botts, dated August 13, 2009.
    11. Southern California Air Quality Alliance, letter from Curtis L.
Coleman, Esq., dated August 12, 2009.
    12. Western States Petroleum Association, letter from David R.
Farabee, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, dated September 18, 2009.

B. Summary of Comments and EPA Responses

    The comments and our responses are summarized below. The comments
have been grouped into general categories.
1. EPA Response to the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Letter
    On May 15, 2009, the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) sent
a letter to EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Elizabeth Craig
regarding issues related to the implementation of CAA section 185. The
CAAAC asked EPA to review and address whether it is ``legally
permissible under either section 185 or 172(e) of the Clean Air Act for
a State to exercise discretion'' to develop fee program SIPs employing
one or more of a list of CAAAC-identified program options (see http://
www.epa.gov/air/caaac/185wg).
    Comments: Several commenters specifically requested that EPA
respond to the CAAAC letter prior to taking final action on SJVUAPCD
Rule 3170. Commenters also suggested that EPA provide final guidance
regarding flexibility under either CAA section 185 or 172(e) before
disapproving any elements of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170.
    Response: EPA intends to respond more fully to the issues raised by
the CAAAC letter. EPA, however, cannot delay action on SJVUAPCD Rule
3170 because we are under a legal obligation to sign a Federal Register
notice for our final action on Rule 3170 by December 11, 2009. This
obligation is imposed by a consent decree between EPA and the Center
for Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) to settle CRPE's
litigation alleging that EPA had failed to act on Rule 3170 in a timely
manner. The consent decree was entered on August 18, 2009, by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, case number 08-
cv-05650 CW.
    We note that CAA section 172(e) does not directly apply to the
transition from the 1-hour ozone standard to the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard because that provision applies only where the revised standard
is less stringent than the standard it replaces. However, because the
CAA does not directly address anti-backsliding where there is a new
more stringent standard, EPA determined to apply the principles of CAA
section 172(e) for purposes of addressing anti-backsliding for the
transition from the 1-hour standard to the 1997 8-hour standard. EPA
also notes that the State has not requested that EPA review Rule 3170
pursuant to the principles in CAA section 172(e) and thus, for purposes
of taking action on Rule 3170, it is not necessary for EPA to take a
final position regarding

whether it could approve a substitute program for the program specified
under CAA section 185.
2. Consideration of Rule 3170 as an Alternative Program
    CAAAC's May 15, 2009, letter identifies as a program option an
exemption from fees for ``well-controlled'' sources. In our proposed
action on Rule 3170, we noted this exemption as a basis for not being
able to fully approve the rule as meeting section 185 of the Act. We
further noted that the State has not requested that EPA review the SIP
to determine whether it would be equivalent to CAA section 185 under
the principles of section 172(e) and has not made a demonstration that
the program it has submitted would ensure controls that are ``not less
stringent'' than those required under section 185. Thus, we stated that
we were not addressing whether it is legally permissible for a State to
adopt an alternative program at least as stringent as a section 185 fee
program, or if so, whether such alternative program could contain a
clean unit exemption.
    Comments: One commenter encouraged EPA to work with SJVUAPCD to
consider Rule 3170 as an alternative program under the provisions of
CAA section 172(e). The commenter felt that this rule as written would
encourage area-wide emission reductions and meet the goals of CAA
section 185 without sacrificing stringency.
    One commenter stated that even if the District had submitted Rule
3170 pursuant to 172(e), or attempts to make a 172(e) demonstration to
justify the clean unit exemption or other deficiency, CAA section
172(e) does not apply in this situation and cannot justify Rule 3170's
failure to comply with CAA section 185. The commenter stated that
section 172(e) only applies where EPA has relaxed a national primary
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). As a result, CAA section 172(e)
does not support the exemptions in Rule 3170.
    Response: We agree with the comment that CAA section 172(e) does
not directly apply where EPA has promulgated a more stringent NAAQS.
However, as noted above, because the Act does not address the
principles that apply when there is a transition to a more stringent
NAAQS, EPA determined that it was reasonable to apply the principles in
section 172(e). Thus, to the extent section 172(e) would authorize EPA
to allow alternatives to statutory programs such as the fee program in
CAA section 185, EPA's application of the principles in section 172(e)
to the anti-backsliding requirements for the 1-hour standard would
provide EPA with the discretion to authorize an alternative program.
Also, as noted above, EPA has not yet stated whether it would approve
such programs for purposes of the anti-backsliding requirements of the
1-hour ozone standard.
    Because the State has not submitted the program as an alternative
program consistent with the principles in CAA section 172(e), EPA is
not required to take a position in this rulemaking on whether it would
approve such alternatives or whether the submitted program is
consistent with those principles. We will continue to work with the
State to ensure that they adopt a program that is fully consistent with
the requirements of the CAA.
3. Exemption for Units That Begin Operation After the Attainment Year
    Section 4.2 of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 exempts units that begin
operation after the attainment year. In its proposed action, EPA stated
that CAA section 185 does not provide for an exemption for emission
units that begin operation after the attainment year, so this exemption
does not fully comply with the CAA. Rather, it requires ``each major
source'' to pay the fee (see CAA section 185(a)).
    Comments: Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposed action
on this particular provision. They felt that this exemption is
consistent with the CAA requirements and therefore should not be
considered a deficiency. They also felt that imposing fees on these
units would be an unfair burden, resulting in an unfair business
environment. One commenter expressed that imposing fees on new units
would only serve to hinder the ability of new, cleaner units to
displace older, dirtier units. Another commenter expressed that while
CAA section 185 does not provide an express exemption for new units,
EPA has sufficient discretion to approve the new unit exemption in Rule
3170.
    Two commenters agreed with EPA's proposed action on this particular
provision. They felt that this exemption violates the requirements of
CAA section 185 and is a rule deficiency that is a basis for
disapproval of the rule. One commenter stated that the CAA section 185
language is plain and unambiguous, and clearly does not allow such an
exemption. The other commenter added that there is no statutory
authority for splitting a stationary source into separate emission
units for the purpose of determining fees.
    Response: CAA section 185 does not provide for an exemption for
units beginning operation after the attainment year. Rather, it
requires that ``each major stationary source'' must pay the fee and
that the baseline emissions are those from the major source in the
attainment year. The word ``each'' does not lend itself to an
interpretation that would exclude new major sources or new units at
existing major sources from the fee obligation. The equity concerns
cannot override the statutory requirement.
4. Exemption for ``Clean Emission Units''
    Section 4.3 of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 exempts any ``clean emission
unit'' from the requirements of the rule. Section 3.6 defines a clean
emission unit as a unit that is equipped with an emissions control
technology that either has a minimum 95% control efficiency (85% for
lean-burn internal combustion engines), or meets the requirements for
achieved-in-practice Best Achievable Control Technology as accepted by
the APCO during the 5 years immediately prior to the end of the
attainment year. The District's staff report for Rule 3170 states that
the exemption is intended to address ``the difficulty of reducing
emissions from units with recently installed BACT.'' In its proposed
action, EPA expressed that although EPA understands the District's
intention, the exemption does not comply with CAA section 185, for the
same reason as noted above for new emission units.
    Comments: Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposed action
on this particular provision. They felt that this exemption is
consistent with the CAA requirements and therefore should not be
considered a deficiency. Several commenters believe that Congress did
not intend to impose fees on units that are already as clean as
possible. The imposition of fees on these units may, in many cases,
force a curtailment in operations to reduce emissions.
    Two commenters agreed with EPA's proposed action on this particular
provision. They felt that this exemption violates CAA section 185
requirements and is a rule deficiency that is a basis for disapproval
of the rule. These commenters stated that the CAA section 185 language
is plain and unambiguous, clearly does not allow such an exemption,
that there is no suggestion in the CAA that the best controlled sources
are entitled to any other ``reward'' or exemption, and that section 185
is not a program to penalize only the less-regulated sources. One
commenter expressed that Congress understood that the level of control
among sources might vary because CAA section 185(b)(2)

specifies that the baseline comes from the lower of actuals or
allowables, and that the allowables baseline is to be based on the
emissions allowed ``under the permit'' unless the source has no permit
and is only subject to limits provided under the SIP. The commenter
stated that it would defeat this express language to exempt sources
from paying a fee based on some arbitrary notion of being ``clean
enough.''
    Response: As explained above, CAA section 185 mandates that the fee
is paid by ``each'' major source based on the emissions from that
source in the baseline year. There is nothing in the language of CAA
section 185 that contemplates that certain sources or that certain
emissions from a source are not subject to the fee.
5. Defining the Baseline Period as the Attainment Year and the
Immediately Preceding Year
    Section 3.2.1 of Rule 3170 defines the baseline period as two
consecutive years consisting of the attainment year and the year
immediately prior to the attainment year. In contrast, CAA section
185(b)(2) establishes the attainment year as the baseline period. While
CAA section 185(b)(2) also provides discretion to calculate baseline
emissions over a period of more than one calendar year, that option is
limited to sources with emissions that are irregular, cyclical, or
otherwise vary significantly from year to year. Thus, in its proposed
action, EPA stated that section 3.2.1 of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 is
inconsistent with the CAA because it provides a different baseline than
that required by the CAA (two years instead of one) regardless of
whether the emissions are irregular, cyclical or vary significantly
from year to year.
    Comments: Six commenters disagreed with EPA's proposed action on
this particular provision. They felt that this provision is consistent
with the CAA requirements as interpreted in a March 21, 2008 memorandum
from William Harnett, Director of the Air Quality Policy Division, to
the Regional Air Division Directors, entitled, ``Guidance on
Establishing Emissions Baselines under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) for Severe and Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Fail to
Attain the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS by their Attainment Date,'' (``Section
185 Baseline Guidance'') and therefore should not be considered a
deficiency.\1\ Commenters objected to EPA's view that the five-year
lookback option in SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 be available only upon a site-
specific consideration of representativeness or cyclicality. One
commenter stated that NSR reform was enacted precisely to replace such
a case-by-case review. The commenter also stated SJVUAPCD's approach
was consistent with EPA's New Source Review approach for multi-year
baselines. The commenter felt that a simple multi-year baseline would
flexibly and efficiently satisfy the statutory language and intent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's Section 185 Baseline Guidance provides that an
acceptable alternative baseline for sources whose emissions are
irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary significantly from year to
year is the 10-year lookback period found in EPA's regulations for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) (40 CFR
52.21(b)(48)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters agreed with EPA's proposed action on this particular
provision. They felt that this exemption violates the CAA section 185
requirements and is a rule deficiency that is a basis for disapproval
of the rule. One commenter stated that CAA section 185 language is
plain and unambiguous, and clearly does not allow the baseline to be
calculated over two years for all sources. The second commenter stated
that section 3.2.1 of Rule 3170 should be revised to clarify that the
baseline for most sources will be the emissions in the attainment year
of 2010, and provide clear criteria for allowing sources to use an
alternative baseline period.
    Response: The language of CAA section 185 provides EPA with
discretion to issue guidance that would allow for the baseline period
to be more than one calendar year. However, CAA section 185 allows EPA
to do so only for sources whose emissions are irregular, cyclical, or
otherwise vary significantly from year to year. EPA's Section 185
Baseline Guidance referred to this connection by stating that, ``where
source emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary
significantly, the CAA provides that the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) may issue guidance providing an alternative method to
calculate the baseline amount.'' EPA issued the Section 185 Baseline
Guidance to provide guidance for an alternative method for calculating
the emissions baseline in these situations. Hence, section 3.2.1 of
Rule 3170 does not conform to CAA section 185 because it allows all
sources to calculate their baseline over a two-year period, regardless
of whether emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary
significantly.
6. Allowing Averaging Over 2-5 Years To Establish Baseline Emissions
    Section 3.2.2 of Rule 3170 allows averaging over 2-5 years to
establish baseline emissions. CAA section 185(b)(2) states that EPA may
issue guidance authorizing such an alternative method of calculating
baseline emissions. EPA's Section 185 Baseline Guidance addresses the
issue of alternative methods for calculating baseline emissions. The
use of these alternative methods is associated with sources whose
emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary significantly from
year to year. The averaging period allowed in section 3.2.2 of Rule
3170 appears consistent with EPA's Section 185 Baseline Guidance. The
language in section 3.2.2, however, allows such averaging ``if those
years are determined by the APCO as more representative of normal
source operation.'' In its proposed action, EPA stated that it
considers this language as less stringent than the criteria in the CAA,
and therefore the rule should be amended to specify use of the expanded
averaging period only if a source's emissions are irregular, cyclical,
or otherwise vary significantly from year to year.
    Comments: Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposed action
on this particular provision. They felt that this exemption is
consistent with the CAA requirements and the Section 185 Baseline
Guidance, and therefore should not be considered a deficiency. The
SJVUAPCD stated that its intention in implementing this provision is
that the criteria of being ``more representative of normal source
operation'' would require a source to demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the APCO that the emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise
vary significantly from year to year. One commenter disagreed with
EPA's assessment that the phrase, ``more representative of normal
source operation'' was less stringent that the CAA section 185
language.
    Two commenters agreed with EPA's proposed action on this particular
provision. They felt that this exemption violates the CAA section 185
requirements and is a rule deficiency that is a basis for disapproval
of the rule. One commenter stated that the CAA section 185 language is
plain and unambiguous, and clearly does not allow such an exemption.
    Response: EPA disagrees that unlimited APCO discretion in
determining normal source operation is consistent with CAA section 185.
Rule 3170 does not specify any criteria for how the APCO would make a
determination that a certain baseline is ``more representative of
normal source operation'' than the baseline specified by CAA section
185 (i.e., the attainment year). It is not clear that the APCO's

discretion would involve an assessment of whether a source's emissions
are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise variable. Therefore, EPA
continues to view the language in section 3.2.2 of Rule 3170 as a
deficiency that needs to be corrected.
7. Stationary Versus Mobile Sources
    Comment: Several commenters stated that most ozone nonattainment
areas classified as severe or extreme are now dominated by mobile
source emissions, and that stationary sources are not the major
contributor of emissions. Commenters stated that CAA section 185 is
functionally obsolete and will result in substantial adverse financial
impacts to facility operators with little or no air quality benefit.
One commenter stated that individual sources do not have the ability to
assure attainment of the standard; consequently, the fee is an
unconstitutional bill of attainder.
    Response: The approach outlined in the CAA to reduce emissions in
defined air basins acknowledges that no single source is responsible
for an area's nonattainment, but that the total collective contribution
of many individual sources affects an area's pollution problem. As
such, the CAA extensively regulates both mobile sources and stationary
sources. Whether or not CAA section 185 is functionally obsolete is an
issue for Congress. As long as CAA section 185 remains the law, EPA's
obligation is to ensure compliance with it. We disagree with the
commenter that claims that since individual sources cannot ensure
attainment of the ozone NAAQS, section 185 is an unconstitutional bill
of attainder. Section 185 does not result in any party being declared
guilty of a crime. Rather, it is a means of encouraging certain sources
to reduce emissions of pollutants that contribute to unhealthy ambient
ozone levels. The Courts have long held that the Commerce clause gives
Congress the authority to regulate sources of air pollution. The fee
provision of CAA section 185 acts as an incentive for major sources of
air pollution to reduce emissions. Thus, it is a proper exercise of
Congressional authority under the Commerce clause.
8. Impacts of Rule 3170 on Small Businesses
    Comment: Commenters stated that hundreds of small businesses will
be affected by CAA section 185 requirements, as well as hospitals,
medical centers, schools and other essential public services.
Commenters stated that applying CAA section 185 fees to small
businesses that are in compliance with all applicable regulations will
demonstrate that the fees are unreasonable, expensive, and do nothing
to reduce and assure emission reductions. One commenter stated that the
fees would be inconsistent with the Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Act and that the fees should not be applied to businesses
meeting the definition of ``small'' under CAA section 507.
    Response: Although CAA section 185 allows for exemptions for
certain low-population areas (see section 185(e)), section 185 does not
grant States or EPA discretion to exempt small businesses from the
requirements of the program. The Regulatory Flexibility Act applies
where EPA is promulgating regulations that may have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Here, it is the
CAA, not EPA's action that imposes the fee on sources. Moreover, in
this instance, EPA is not promulgating regulations, but rather
reviewing a State plan. EPA does not have the authority to consider the
impacts on small businesses that result from direct application of the
statute or through applications of the State program. Moreover, even if
EPA were promulgating a regulation that was determined to have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, we note
that the RFA does not prohibit any specific regulatory result, as
suggested by the commenters. Rather it only requires that the Agency
take certain actions in order to fully consider the potential impacts
of the regulation.
9. Unintended Consequences of Rule 3170
    Comment: One commenter stated that renewable energy facilities may
need to reduce throughput as a result of CAA section 185 requirements
and this would be contrary to efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and
increase the penetration of renewable energy.
    Response: Sources have several ways to comply with the requirements
of CAA section 185, and this could include reducing throughput to
eliminate or reduce the fee amount. Regardless of the consequence of
the manner in which a major source chooses to comply with the
requirements, section 185 does not provide States or EPA with authority
to exempt major stationary sources from complying with section 185.
10. Incorrect Statement of Baseline Emissions
    Comment: One commenter stated that section 5.1 of Rule 3170 needs
to be revised to accurately define the baseline emissions to be used in
the calculation of the fee amount. In addition, the definition of
baseline emissions fails to include the possibility that a source will
not have a permit issued for the attainment year, in which case the
allowable emissions are to be based on the emissions allowed under the
applicable implementation plan (see CAA section 185(b)(2)). While such
circumstances may be rare, the District should include language that
mirrors the statute to avoid any potential conflict.
    Response: While we think it is unlikely that any sources would not
fall within the current definition, we agree with the commenter and
recommend that the calculation in section 5.1 of Rule 3170 be revised
to more closely conform to the language in CAA section 185. The
definition of the variable ``B'' in the fee calculation should include
the clarification that if no permit has been issued for the attainment
year, then ``B'' should be the lower of the actual VOC or emissions
during the baseline period, or the amount of VOC or NOX
emissions allowed under the applicable implementation plan during the
baseline period.
11. Ambiguity on Fees for Both VOCs and NOX
    Comment: One commenter expressed that the fee calculation in
section 5.0 of Rule 3170 is ambiguous regarding whether the fee is due
for VOCs and NOX, or just one or the other. Sources must pay
a fee for both VOC emissions in excess of 80% of the VOC baseline
emissions and NOX emissions in excess of 80% of the
NOX baseline emissions. Section 5.0 of Rule 3170 should be
revised to clarify this point.
    Response: EPA agrees that the fee is required for both VOC and
NOX emissions. We believe that the District and sources
understand the fee program applies to both VOC and NOX
emissions, and that the language in section 5.1 of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170
is sufficiently clear in that respect. For example, the District staff
report for Rule 3170 contained a sample fee calculation which also made
it clear that a separate fee would be assessed for VOC emissions and
NOX emissions. While we do not believe any revisions to the
rule are necessary, we recommend that SJVUAPCD consider whether further
clarification might be helpful.
12. Definition of ``Major Source''
    Section 3.4 of Rule 3170 defines the term ``Major Source'' by
referring to the definition in SJVUAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified
Stationary Source Review Rule). The current SIP-approved

version of Rule 2201 was adopted by the SJVUAPCD on December 19, 2002,
and approved by EPA on May 17, 2004 (69 FR 27837). This version of Rule
2201 defines ``Major Source'' as a stationary source with VOC or
NOX emissions of over 50,000 pounds per year (25 tons per
year). The CAA defines the major source threshold as 10 tons per year
for ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme. The SJVUAPCD
amended Rule 2201 on December 18, 2008, and submitted it for inclusion
in the SIP on March 17, 2009. This amended version includes the 10 tons
per year threshold, but has not been approved into the SIP. Therefore,
in its proposed action, EPA stated that Rule 3170's reliance on Rule
2201 to define major sources is not approvable at this time. If a
version of Rule 2201 that contains the appropriate major source
threshold is approved into the SIP prior to finalizing the proposed
action, then section 3.4 would no longer be cited as a deficiency in
Rule 3170.
    Comments: Several commenters disagreed with EPA's proposed action
on this particular provision. They felt that this discrepancy would be
resolved prior to the assessment or collection of any section 185 fees
when Rule 2201 is approved into the SIP. One commenter also expressed
that the thresholds in Rule 2201 are currently binding under State law,
and therefore the ``Major Source'' definition in Rule 3170 should not
be considered a deficiency that would result in the disapproval of the
rule.
    Two commenters agreed with EPA's proposed action on this particular
provision. One commenter felt that this definition is currently
inconsistent with CAA requirements, noting that EPA has allowed Rule
2201 to remain out of date for 5 years. However, in the current
situation, the commenter agreed that this definition is a rule
deficiency that is a basis for disapproval of the rule. One commenter
added that the definition of ``Major Source'' in Rule 2201 does not
match the definition in CAA section 182(e). For example, Rule 2201's
definition excludes fugitive emissions for certain sources, only
includes potential emissions from units with valid permits, and credits
limits in authorities to construct that may or may not reflect actual
emissions. As a result, the commenter felt that EPA is incorrect in
suggesting that this deficiency will be resolved once the revised
version of Rule 2201 is approved into the SIP. The commenter felt that
section 3.4 of Rule 3170 should be revised to mirror the definition of
``major source'' in CAA section 182(e), which includes all emissions of
VOC or NOX, and looks at the larger of actual or potential
emissions.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the statement that the December 18,
2008, version of Rule 2201 is currently binding under State law. That
version of the rule specifically states that it does not go into effect
until EPA issues final approval of the rule into the SIP. The ``Major
Source'' definition in Rule 3170 continues to be a deficiency until it
is revised to be consistent with the CAA. Further, we agree that since
we have not yet fully reviewed and acted on Rule 2201, we cannot say
for a certainty that approval of that rule would eliminate any
deficiency with respect to the definition of major sources under Rule
3170. We will continue to work with the State to ensure that it
develops a section 185 program that fully complies with the Act.
13. Sunset Provision for Section 185 Fees
    Comment: One commenter highlighted the need for EPA to address the
legality and process of establishing a sunset provision for section 185
fees, an issue identified in the CAAAC letter. Because the 1-hour ozone
standard has been replaced with the 8-hour standard, EPA may not be
able to make the findings necessary to redesignate an area as
attainment for the 1-hour standard. This situation would require the
imposition of fees indefinitely. The commenter feels that this issue
must be resolved if EPA finalizes action on Rule 3170.
    Response: EPA is aware of the issue raised by the commenter and
intends to address in future guidance or rulemaking the issue of when
section 185 fees would no longer apply.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a limited
approval of the submitted rule. This action incorporates the submitted
rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as
deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously
finalizing a limited disapproval of the rule. As a result, sanctions
will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that
correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of
this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the
Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a
Federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we
approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies
within 24 months. Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the
SJVUAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the
local agency from enforcing it.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals and limited approvals/
limited disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because
this limited approval/limited disapproval action does not create any
new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final
rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs
to State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval
action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result
in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
Tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local
law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or Tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will 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, because it
merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    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 this rule 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 rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective February 12, 2010.

K. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 15, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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. This action 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 11, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(303)(i)(C)(4) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (303) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (4) Rule 3170, ``Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee,''
adopted on May 16, 2002.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-353 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


pp. 34-35
ozone concentrations for monitoring sites in the Transport Rule covered states (including the six states for which EPA issued a supplemental proposal for ozone-season NOX requirements) in 2014.
     For annual PM2.5, the average reduction across all monitoring sites in covered states in 2014 is 1.41 microgram per meter cubed (ug/m[3]) and the greatest reduction at a single site is 3.60 ug/m[3].  For 24-hour PM2.5, the average reduction across all monitoring sites in covered states in 2014 is 4.3 ug/m[3] and the greatest reduction at a single site is 11.6 ug/m[3].  And finally, for 8-hour ozone, the average reduction across all monitoring sites in covered states in 2014 is 0.3 parts per billion (ppb) and the greatest is 3.9 ppb.  See section VIII for further information on air quality improvements.
 EPA estimated the Transport Rule's costs and benefits, including effects on sensitive and vulnerable and environmental justice communities.  Table III-4, below, summarizes some of these results.  Further discussion of the results is provided in preamble section VIII, below, and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA).  Estimates here are subject to uncertainties discussed further in the RIA.

Table III-4.  Summary of Annual Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Final Transport Rule in 2014
                            (Billions of 2007$)[a]

                                  Description
                  Transport Rule Remedy (Billions of 2007 $)

                               3 % discount rate
                               7 % discount rate
Social costs
                                                                          $0.81
                                                                          $0.81
Total monetized benefits[b]
                                                                   $120 to $280
                                                                   $110 to $250
Net benefits (benefits-costs)
                                                                   $120 to $280
                                                                   $110 to $250
[a] All estimates are for 2014, and are rounded to two significant figures.
[b] The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 and ozone and the welfare benefits associated with improved visibility in Class I areas. The reduction in premature mortalities account for over 90 percent of total monetized PM2.5 and ozone benefits.

 As a result of updated analyses and in response to public comments, the final Transport Rule differs from the proposal in a number of ways.  The differences between proposal and final rule are discussed throughout this preamble.  Some key changes between proposal and final rule are that EPA:
   * Updated emission inventories (resulting in generally lower base case emissions).  See section V.C.

pp. 432-433
minus social costs) as shown in Table VIII.C-3 for the Transport Rule is approximately $120 to $280 billion or $110 to $250 billion (3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively) in 2014. Implementation of the rule is expected to provide society with a substantial net gain in social welfare based on economic efficiency criteria.
        A listing of the benefit categories that could not be quantified or monetized in our benefit estimates is provided in Table VIII.C-4.
Table VIII.C - 3 Summary of Annual Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Final Transport Rule in 2014
                            (Billions of 2007$)[a]

                                  Description
                  Transport Rule Remedy (Billions of 2007 $)

                               3 % discount rate
                               7 % discount rate
Social costs
                                                                          $0.81
                                                                          $0.81
Total monetized benefits[b]
                                                                   $120 to $280
                                                                   $110 to $250
Net benefits (benefits-costs)
                                                                   $120 to $280
                                                                   $110 to $250
[a] All estimates are for 2014, and are rounded to two significant figures.
[b] The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 and ozone and the welfare benefits associated with improved visibility in Class I areas. The reduction in premature mortalities account for over 90 percent of total monetized PM2.5 and ozone benefits.

The annualized regional cost of the rule, as quantified here, is EPA's best assessment of the cost of implementing the Transport Rule. These costs are generated from rigorous economic modeling of changes in the power sector expected from the rule.  This type of analysis, using IPM, has undergone peer review and been upheld in federal courts.  The direct cost includes, but is not limited to, capital investments in pollution controls, operating expenses of the pollution controls, investments in new generating sources, and additional fuel expenditures.  The EPA believes that these costs reflect, as closely as possible, the additional costs of the Transport Rule to industry.  The relatively small cost associated with monitoring emissions, reporting, and recordkeeping for affected sources is not included in these annualized cost estimates, but EPA has done a separate analysis and estimated the cost to be about $26 million (see section XII.B, Paperwork Reduction Act).  However, there may exist certain costs that EPA has not quantified in these estimates.  These costs may include costs of transitioning to this rule, such as the costs associated with the retirement of smaller or


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9854-9856]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3906]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0011]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
standard; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 16 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0011 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgment
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 16 individuals
listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from
the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will
evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether
granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety
mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Paul C. Anderson

    Mr. Anderson, age 59, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Anderson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he has he has stable nonproliferative retinopathy in the right
eye, and stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy in the left eye. He
holds a Class B Commercial Drivers License (CDL) from Washington.

Brenda A. Barnhill

    Ms. Barnhill, 54, has had ITDM since 1996. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2010 and certified that she has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
her diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms.
Barnhill meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2010

and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a
Chauffeur license from Indiana.

Warren S. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 48, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Brown meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C
operator's license from Georgia.

Gregory M. Cox

    Mr. Cox, 47, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years; understands
diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cox meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.

Bruce R. Davis

    Mr. Davis, 50, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Davis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a
Class A CDL from New Jersey.

Neal J. Gifford

    Mr. Gifford, 46, has had ITDM since 1997. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Gifford meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Ohio.

William Hepp

    Mr. Hepp, 70, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years; understands
diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hepp meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Pennsylvania.

Ryan B. Holmes

    Mr. Holmes, 25, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Holmes meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Oregon.

Todd A. Kozemchak

    Mr. Kozemchak, 46, has had ITDM since 1975. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Kozemchak meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Pennsylvania.

James L. Mynars

    Mr. Mynars, 55, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Mynars meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Minnesota.

Dale A. Roberts

    Mr. Roberts, 58, has had ITDM since 1960. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Roberts meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a
Class A CDL from Iowa.

Clarence C. Schutz

    Mr. Schutz, 73, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Schutz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
North Dakota.

Aaron J. Shown

    Mr. Shown, 32, has had ITDM since 1985. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Shown meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Illinois.

Daniel H. Starrett

    Mr. Starrett, 51, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Starrett meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a
Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Bruce K. Thomas

    Mr. Thomas, 60, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Thomas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from New York.

Kory M. Tobias

    Mr. Tobias, 32, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Tobias meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C
operator's license from Illinois.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of
the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the
September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with
section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the
September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: February 15, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-3906 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 25293-25296]
[DOCID:fr04my07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF07-4-000]

Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Midcontinent Express
Pipeline Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and
Notice of Public Scoping Meetings

April 27, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that
will identify and address the environmental impacts that could result
from construction and operation of the Midcontinent Express Pipeline
Project (Project) proposed by Midcontinent Express Pipeline LLC (MEP).
The Commission will use the EIS in its decision-making process to
determine whether or not to authorize the Project. This notice explains
the scoping process we \1\ will use to gather input from the public and
interested agencies on the Project. Your input will help us determine
the issues that need to be evaluated in the EIS. Please note that the
scoping period will close on May 29, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ''We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments on the Project and the issues that should be addressed in
the EIS may be submitted in written form or verbally. Further details
on how to submit written comments are provided in the Public
Participation section of this notice. In lieu of sending written
comments, we invite you to attend the public scoping meetings that we
have scheduled as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, May 14, 2007; 7 p.m. (CDT).....  Quitman Depot, Main Street and
                                          Railroad Avenue, Quitman, MS
                                          39355.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007; 7 p.m. (CDT)....  Pearl Community Room, 2420 Old
                                          Brandon Rd., Pearl, MS 39208.
Thursday, May 17, 2007; 7 p.m. (CDT)...  Delhi High School Auditorium,
                                          413 Main Street, Delhi, LA
                                          71232.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, May 21, 2007; 7 p.m. (CDT).....  Minden Community House, 711
                                          Gladney Street, Minden, LA
                                          71055.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007; 7 p.m. (CDT)....  Mt. Pleasant Civic Center, 1800
                                          North Jefferson, Mt. Pleasant,
                                          TX 75455.
Thursday, May 24, 2007; 7 p.m. (CDT)...  Love Civic Center, 2025 South
                                          Collegiate Drive, Paris, TX
                                          75460.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; Federal, State,
and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers; all of which are
encouraged to submit comments on the proposed Project. Details on how
to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of
this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a MEP representative about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed Project facilities. The
pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the Project is approved by the FERC, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact

sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the
use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    MEP proposes to construct, own and operate approximately 494 miles
of new 30-, 36-, and 42-inch-diameter interstate natural gas
transmission pipeline, a total of approximately 111,420 horsepower (hp)
of compression at one booster and four new mainline compressor
stations, and related appurtenant facilities located in portions of
Oklahoma, northeast Texas, northern Louisiana, central Mississippi, and
Alabama. The proposed pipeline route identified by MEP would extend
from a receipt point with existing pipeline infrastructure near
Bennington in Bryan County, Oklahoma, to an interconnect with the
existing Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company system near Butler in
Choctaw County, Alabama. The general location of the proposed pipeline
is shown in the figure included as Appendix 1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Specifically, the MEP Project facilities under FERC jurisdiction
would include the following:
     Approximately 40 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline in
Bryan County, Oklahoma, and Fannin and Lamar Counties, Texas;
     Approximately 257 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline in
Lamar, Red River, Franklin, Titus, Morris, and Cass Counties, Texas,
and Caddo, Bossier, Webster, Claiborne, Lincoln, Union, Ouachita,
Morehouse, Richland, and Madison Parishes, Louisiana;
     Approximately 197 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in
Madison Parish, Louisiana, and Warren, Hinds, Rankin, Simpson, Smith,
Jasper, Clarke, Counties, Mississippi, and Choctaw County, Alabama;
     Four new mainline and one booster, natural gas-fired
compressor stations, including:
--A new 38,555 hp compressor station at Milepost (MP) 43.9 in Lamar
County, Texas;
--A new 12,270 hp compressor station at MP 131.7 in Cass County, Texas;
--A new 32,720 hp compressor station at MP 249.7 in Union Parish,
Louisiana;
--A new 18,405 hp compressor station at MP 346.1 in Warren County,
Mississippi;
--A new 9,470 hp booster compressor station at MP 300.6 in Madison
Parish, Louisiana;

     Meter stations at up to 13 interconnects with existing
pipeline infrastructure in Bryan County, Oklahoma; Lamar and Cass
Counties, Texas; Ouachita, Richland, and Madison Parishes, Louisiana;
Hinds, Smith, Jasper, and Clarke Counties, Mississippi; and Choctaw
County, Alabama;
     Various pig \3\ launching and receiving facilities; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A pig is a mechanical tool used to clean and inspect the
interior of a pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     29 mainline valves.
    MEP indicates that the proposed Project facilities would provide
long-haul takeaway capacity to facilitate the transport of natural gas
from production areas in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas to markets in
the Southeast, Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States that
can be accessed through interconnects with existing pipeline
infrastructure. The Project would consist of two capacity zones. The
initial transport capacity of Zone 1, which would include the 30- and
42-inch-diameter portions of the pipeline facilities, would be 1.4
billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (Bcf/d). However, additional
supporting contracts could provide for expansion of the Zone 1
transport capacity to 1.5 Bcf/d. Zone 2, which would include the
balance of the pipeline facilities, would have a transport capacity of
1.2 Bcf/d.
    MEP proposes to place the first 40 miles of 30-inch-diameter
pipeline in service by October 31, 2008, with the remainder of the
pipeline constructed and operational by February 2009.

Land Requirements for Construction

    As proposed, the typical construction right-of-way for the Project
pipeline would be 100 feet wide for the 30-inch-diameter portion of the
pipeline and 125 feet wide for the 36-inch and 42-inch-diameter
portions of the pipeline. Following construction, MEP would retain a
50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way for operation of the Project.
Additionally, temporary extra

workspaces beyond the typical construction right-of-way limits would
also be required at certain feature crossings (e.g., roads, railroads,
wetlands, or waterbodies), in areas with steep side slopes, in
association with special construction techniques, or at pipe storage
and contractor yards. In residential areas, wetlands, and other
sensitive areas, the construction right-of-way width would be reduced
as necessary to protect homeowners and environmental resources.
Following construction, all temporary workspaces (including the
temporary construction rights-of-way and extra workspaces) would be
restored and allowed to revert to its former use.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from the approval of an interstate natural gas pipeline. The
FERC will use the EIS to consider the environmental impact that could
result if the Project is authorized under Section 7 of the Natural Gas
Act.
    NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public
may have about proposals to be considered by the Commission. This
process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping
process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important
environmental issues. With this Notice of Intent, the Commission staff
is requesting public comments on the scope of the issues to be
addressed in the EIS. All comments received will be considered during
preparation of the EIS.
    In the EIS we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed Project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Water resources;
     Wetlands and vegetation;
     Fish and wildlife;
     Threatened and endangered species;
     Land use, recreation, and visual resources;
     Air quality and noise;
     Cultural resources;
     Socioeconomics;
     Reliability and safety; and
     Cumulative impacts.
    In the EIS, we will also evaluate possible alternatives to the
proposed Project or portions of the Project, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on affected resources.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be included in a Draft
EIS. The Draft EIS will be mailed to Federal, State, and local
government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; Native American tribes; affected landowners;
commentors; other interested parties; local libraries and newspapers;
and the FERC's official service list for this proceeding. A 45-day
comment period will be allotted for review of the Draft EIS. We will
consider all comments on the Draft EIS and revise the document, as
necessary, before issuing a Final EIS. We will consider all comments on
the Final EIS before we make our recommendations to the Commission. To
ensure that your comments are considered, please follow the
instructions in the Public Participation section of this notice.
    Although no formal application has been filed, the FERC staff has
already initiated its NEPA review under the Commission's Pre-filing
Process. The purpose of the Pre-filing Process is to encourage the
early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and
resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC.
    With this notice, we are asking Federal, State, and local
governmental agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with
respect to environmental issues, especially those identified in
Appendix 2, to express their interest in becoming cooperating agencies
for the preparation of the EIS. These agencies may choose to
participate once they have evaluated the proposal relative to their
responsibilities. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided in
Appendix 2.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    The EIS will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
construction and operation of the proposed Project. We have already
identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a
preliminary review of the Project site and the facility information
provided by MEP. This preliminary list of issues may be changed based
on your comments and our analysis.
     Potential impacts to water resources, including
groundwater and perennial and intermittent waterbodies.
     Evaluation of temporary and permanent impacts on wetlands
and development of appropriate mitigation.
     Potential impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, including
potential impacts to federal and state-listed threatened and endangered
species.
     Potential impacts to natural vegetative communities,
including native prairie and forestland.
     Potential effects on prime farmland soils and soils with a
high potential for compaction or erosion.
     Potential impacts to existing land uses, including
agricultural and managed forested lands.
     Potential impacts to recreation and special interest
areas, including Wetland Reserve Program lands and the Natchez Trace
Parkway.
     Potential impacts to residential areas and planned
developments.
     Potential disruption to area businesses associated with
construction.
     Potential visual effects of the pipeline easement and
aboveground facilities on surrounding areas.
     Potential impacts to local air and noise quality
associated with construction and operation.
     Potential impacts to cultural resources and Native
American lands.
     Public safety and hazards associated with the transport of
natural gas.
     Alternative alignments for the pipeline route and
alternative sites for the compressor stations.
     Assessment of the effect of the proposed Project when
combined with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future
actions in the Project area, including the potential cumulative effect
of collocating multiple utility rights-of-way.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the proposed Project. By becoming a
commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EIS and considered by
the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives (including alternative
facility sites and pipeline routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly
recorded, please carefully follow these instructions:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 3, DG2E.
     Reference Docket No. PF07-4-000 on the original and both
copies.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before May 29, 2007.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any
comments in response to this Notice of Intent. For information on
electronic filing of comments, please see the instructions on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing''

link and the link to the User's Guide, as well as information in 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii). Before you can submit comments you will need to
create a free account, which can be created on-line.
    The public scoping meetings (dates, times, and locations are listed
above) are designed to provide another opportunity to offer comments on
the proposed Project. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged
to attend the meetings and to present comments on the environmental
issues they believe should be addressed in the EIS. A transcript of
each meeting will be generated so that your comments will be accurately
recorded.
    Once MEP formally files its application with the Commission, you
may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and
are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts
if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time.
You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    An effort is being made to send this notice to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the proposed Project. This includes all landowners who are
potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily
for Project purposes, or who own homes within distances of certain
aboveground facilities, as defined in the Commission's regulations.
    If you received this notice, you are on the environmental mailing
list for this Project. If you do not want to send comments at this
time, but still want to remain on our mailing list, please return the
Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not return the Information
Request, you will be removed from the Commission's environmental
mailing list.

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. Using the

``eLibrary'' link, select ``General Search'' and enter the Project
docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF07-4) in the
``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or TTY,

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

    Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx

along with other related information.
    Finally, MEP has established an Internet Web site for this Project
at http://www.midcontinentexpress.com. The Web site includes a

description of the Project, a map of the proposed pipeline route, and
answers to frequently asked questions. You can also request additional
information or provide comments directly to MEP at 1-877-327-5515 or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-8522 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69084-69085]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27435]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0050; FRL 9902-89-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Implementation of Ambient Air Protocol Gas
Verification Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Implementation of Ambient Air
Protocol Gas Verification Program (Renewal) to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which
is currently approved through December 31, 2013. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 30300) on May 22,
2013 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor

and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 18,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0050, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Laurie Trinca, Air Quality
Assessment Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C304-06, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that EPA will be collecting, are available in
the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For further information
about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    ICR Information: EPA ICR Number 2375.02; OMB Control Number 2060-
0648.
    Abstract: This ICR includes ambient air monitoring data reporting
and recordkeeping activities associated with the 40 CFR part 58,
appendix A, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance Quality Assurance
Regulations. These data and information are collected by state, local,
and tribal air quality management agencies and reported to the EPA.
    The EPA Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program's quality assurance
requirements in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, require: ``2.6 Gaseous and
Flow Rate Audit Standards. Gaseous pollutant concentration standards
(permeation devices or cylinders of compressed gas) used to obtain test
concentrations for CO, SO2, NO, and NO2 must be
traceable to either a National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) Traceable Reference Material (NTRM), NIST Standard Reference
Materials (SRM), and Netherlands Measurement Institute (NMI) Primary
Reference Materials (valid as covered by Joint Declaration of
Equivalence) or a NIST-certified Gas Manufacturer's Internal Standard
(GMIS), certified in accordance with one of the procedures given in
reference 4 of this appendix. Vendors advertising certification with
the procedures provided in reference 4 of this appendix and
distributing gases as ``EPA Protocol Gas'' must participate in the EPA
Protocol Gas Verification Program or not use ``EPA'' in any form of
advertising.''
    These requirements give assurance to end users that all specialty
gas producers selling EPA Protocol Gases are participants in a program
that provides an independent assessment of the accuracy of their gases'
certified concentrations. In 2010, EPA developed an Ambient Air
Protocol Gas Verification Program that provides end users with
information about participating producers and verification results.
Each year, EPA will attempt to compare gas cylinders from every
specialty gas producer being used by ambient air monitoring
organizations. Cylinders will be verified at a pre-determined time each
quarter. In order to make the appropriate selection, EPA needs to know
what specialty gas producers are being used by the monitoring
organizations. Therefore, EPA needs information from each primary
quality assurance organization every year on specialty gas producers
being used and whether the monitoring organization would like to
participate in the verification for the upcoming calendar year.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State, local, and Tribal air quality
management agencies.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under 40 CFR part 58.
    Estimated number of respondents: 211 (total).
    Frequency of response: Yearly.
    Total estimated burden: 70 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4,674 (per year). There are no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-27435 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P