[Federal Register: December 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 242)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75662]
[DOCID:fr18de06-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 292

[Docket No. RM06-10-000]

New PURPA Section 210(m) Regulations Applicable to Small Power
Production and Cogeneration Facilities; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects errors in a final rule that the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) published in the Federal
Register on November 1, 2006. That action amended the Commission's
regulations governing small power production and cogeneration in
response to section 1253 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

DATES: These corrections are effective January 2, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel Higginbottom (Legal
Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Document 06-8928, published November
1, 2006 (71 FR 64342), make the following corrections:

0
On page 64372, column 2, in Sec.  292.303(c)(1), in the last sentence,
after ``interconnection'' add ``costs''. The sentence is corrected to
read: ``The obligation to pay for any interconnection costs shall be
determined in accordance with Sec.  292.306.

0
On page 64372, column 2, in ``Sec.  292.303(d), in the first sentence,
after ``purchase energy'', remove ``and'' and add in its place ``or''.
Sentence is corrected to read : ``If a qualifying facility agrees, an
electric utility which would otherwise be obligated to purchase energy
or capacity from such qualifying facility may transmit energy or
capacity to any other electric utility''.

0
On page 64373, column 1, in Sec.  292.309(f)(2), in the last sentence
after ``facility ouput or'' add the word ``capacity''. Sentence is
corrected to read: ``The qualifying facility may show that it is
located in an area where persistent transmission constraints in effect
cause the qualifying facility not to have access to markets outside a
persistently congested area to sell the qualifying facility output or
capacity''.

0
On page 64374, second column, in Sec.  292.312(b), after, ``an existing
qualifying cogeneration'' remove ``qualifying''. The sentence is
corrected to read: ``After August 8, 2005, an electric utility shall
not be required to enter into a new contract or obligation to sell
electric energy to a qualifying small power production facility, an
existing qualifying cogeneration facility, or a new qualifying
cogeneration facility if the Commission has found that;''

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21433 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43785-43787]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14823]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0498; FRL-10011-38-Region 9]

Air Quality Implementation Plan; California; Calaveras County Air
Pollution Control District and Mariposa County Air Pollution Control
District; Stationary Source Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Calaveras County Air Pollution Control
District (CCAPCD) and the Mariposa County Air Pollution Control
District (MCAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). In this action, we are proposing to approve two rules, one
submitted by the CCAPCD and the other by the MCAPCD, governing the
issuance of permits for stationary sources, focusing on the
preconstruction review and permitting of major sources and major
modifications under part D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``the Act''). We are taking comments on this proposal and a final
action will follow.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2019-0498 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI and
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maggie Waldon or Amber Batchelder, EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415)
972-3987 or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. The EPA's Evaluation
    A. What is the background for today's proposal?
    B. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?
    C. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal including the
dates they were adopted by each District and submitted to the EPA by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB or ``the State'').

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Rule or regulation
             District                      No.                 Rule title             Adopted      Submitted \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calaveras County APCD............  Rule 428...........  NSR Requirements for New        03/12/19        04/05/19
                                                         and Modified Major
                                                         Sources in
                                                         Nonattainment Areas.
Mariposa County APCD.............  Regulation XI......  NSR Requirements for New        03/12/19        04/05/19
                                                         and Modified Major
                                                         Sources in the Mariposa
                                                         County Air Pollution
                                                         Control District.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For areas designated nonattainment for one or more National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the applicable SIP must include
preconstruction review and permitting requirements for new or modified
major stationary sources of such nonattainment pollutant(s) under part
D of title I of the Act, commonly referred to as Nonattainment New
Source Review (NNSR). The rules listed in Table 1 contain the relevant
District's NNSR permit program applicable to new and modified major
sources located in areas designated nonattainment for any ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Each submittal was transmitted to the EPA via a letter from
CARB dated April 3, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA issued final rules on February 3, 2017, and December 11,
2017, that found (among other things) that the CCAPCD and the MCAPCD
had

failed to submit to the EPA for SIP approval an NNSR program as
required for areas designated nonattainment for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS.\2\ These findings of failure to submit triggered sanctions
clocks, as per CAA section 179.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 82 FR 9158; 82 FR 58118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 12, 2019, the EPA determined that the California SIP
submittals listed above in Table 1 met the completeness criteria in 40
CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.\3\
The EPA's April 12, 2019 findings of completeness represented the EPA's
determination that the NNSR-related deficiencies that formed the basis
for the February 3, 2017 and December 11, 2017 findings of failure to
submit had been corrected, and as a result, the associated sanctions
and running of the sanctions clocks were permanently stopped.\4\ See 40
CFR 52.31(d)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See letter dated April 12, 2019 from Elizabeth J. Adams, US
EPA Region 9, to Richard Corey, CARB, regarding the April 5, 2019
submittal of CCAPCD Rule 428; and letter dated April 12, 2019 from
Elizabeth J. Adams, US EPA Region 9, to Richard Corey, CARB,
regarding the April 5, 2019 submittal of MCAPCD Regulation XI.
    \4\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of CCAPCD Rule 428 or MCAPCD
Regulation XI in the California SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    CCAPCD Rule 428 and MCAPCD Regulation XI are intended to address
the CAA's statutory and regulatory requirements for NNSR permit
programs for major sources emitting nonattainment air pollutants and
their precursors.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

A. What is the background for today's proposal?

    As federal ozone nonattainment areas, Calaveras and Mariposa
Counties are required to have an approved NNSR program in the
California SIP. Below, we provide the ozone designation history for
each area, which forms the basis for each District's NNSR program
needed to satisfy the NNSR requirements applicable to Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas.
    On July 18, 1997, the EPA issued a final rule revising the primary
and secondary NAAQS for ozone to establish new 8-hour standards of 0.08
ppm.\5\ On April 30, 2004, the EPA issued a final rule designating
Calaveras and Mariposa Counties as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, effective June 15, 2004.\6\ On May 14, 2012, Calaveras and
Mariposa Counties were reclassified as Moderate nonattainment for the
1997 ozone NAAQS.\7\ On December 3, 2012, the EPA issued a final rule
that determined that Calaveras and Mariposa Counties had attained the
1997 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR 50.10; see 62 FR 38856, 38894-38895.
    \6\ 69 FR 23858, 23881, 23885.
    \7\ 77 FR 28424; see also 77 FR 43521 (July 25, 2012).
    \8\ 77 FR 71551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 27, 2008, the EPA issued a final rule revising the NAAQS
for ozone, reducing the standards to a level of 0.075 ppm.\9\ On May
21, 2012, the EPA issued a final rule designating Calaveras County and
Mariposa County as nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with
a Marginal classification.\10\ On May 4, 2016, the EPA issued a final
rule that determined that Calaveras County had attained the 2008 ozone
NAAQS by the attainment date, and that Mariposa County had not attained
the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date and would therefore be
reclassified as a Moderate nonattainment area.\11\ On August 23, 2019,
the EPA issued a final rule that determined that Mariposa County had
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the July 20, 2018 applicable
attainment date.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 40 CFR 50.15; see 73 FR 16436, 16511.
    \10\ 77 FR 30088, 30099, 30103.
    \11\ 81 FR 26697.
    \12\ 84 FR 44238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 26, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule revising the NAAQS
for ozone, reducing the standards to a level of 0.070 ppm.\13\ On June
4, 2018, the EPA issued a final rule designating Calaveras County and
Mariposa County as nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with
a Marginal classification.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 40 CFR 50.19; see 80 FR 65292, 65452.
    \14\ 40 CFR 81.305; see 83 FR 25776, 25786, 25788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The designation of Calaveras and Mariposa Counties as federal ozone
nonattainment areas triggered the requirement for each of these
Districts to develop and submit an NNSR program to the EPA for approval
into the California SIP.\15\ The Districts' NNSR programs must satisfy
the NNSR requirements applicable to Moderate ozone nonattainment areas,
as this is the highest ozone nonattainment classification to which each
District is subject.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 40 CFR 51.1100(o)(14), 51.1105(a), 51.1114, 51.1314. We
note that, as a result of the EPA's determination that an area has
attained a NAAQS by the attainment date, those SIP elements related
to attaining the NAAQS are suspended for so long as the area
continues to attain the standard; however, the requirement for an
NNSR program is not one of the SIP elements suspended as a result of
such a determination. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.1118.
    \16\ 40 CFR 51.1105(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 5, 2019, CARB submitted to the EPA for SIP approval, via
correspondence dated April 3, 2019, CCAPCD Rule 428, ``NSR Requirements
for New and Modified Major Sources in Nonattainment Areas,'' and MCAPCD
Regulation XI, ``NSR Requirements for New and Modified Major Sources in
the Mariposa County Air Pollution Control District,'' each of which had
been adopted by the respective District on March 12, 2019.

B. How is the EPA evaluating the rules?

    The EPA reviewed CCAPCD Rule 428 and MCAPCD Regulation XI for
compliance with CAA requirements for: (1) Stationary source
preconstruction permitting programs as set forth in CAA part D,
including CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173; (2) the review and
modification of major sources in accordance with 40 CFR 51.160-51.165
as applicable in a Moderate ozone nonattainment area; (3) the review of
new major stationary sources or major modifications in a designated
nonattainment area that may have an impact on visibility in any
mandatory Class I Federal area in accordance with 40 CFR 51.307; (4)
SIPs in general as set forth in CAA sections 110(a)(2), including
110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(E)(i); \17\ and (5) SIP revisions as set
forth in CAA section 110(l) \18\ and 193.\19\ Our review evaluated the
submittals for compliance with the NNSR requirements applicable to
nonattainment areas designated Moderate, and ensured that the
submittals addressed the NNSR requirements for the 1997, 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations
submitted to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally
enforceable, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) requires that states
have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to
carry out their proposed SIP revisions.
    \18\ CAA section 110(l) requires SIP revisions to be subject to
reasonable notice and public hearing prior to adoption and submittal
by states to EPA and prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision
that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.
    \19\ CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-
approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 in a
nonattainment area, unless the modification ensures equivalent or
greater emission reductions of the relevant pollutants.

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

C. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and
110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public
process documentation included in the April 5, 2019 submittal of CCAPCD
Rule 428 and MCAPCD Regulation XI, we find that the CCAPCD and MCAPCD
have provided sufficient evidence of public notice, opportunity for
comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and submittal of these
rules to the EPA.
    With respect to the substantive requirements found in CAA sections
172(c)(5) and 173, and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165, we have evaluated CCAPCD
Rule 428 and MCAPCD Regulation XI in accordance with the applicable CAA
and regulatory requirements that apply to NNSR permit programs under
part D of title I of the Act for all relevant ozone NAAQS, including
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. We find that CCAPCD Rule 428 and MCAPCD
Regulation XI satisfy these requirements as they apply to sources
subject to NNSR permit program requirements for ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate. We have also determined that these rules
satisfy the related visibility requirements in 40 CFR 51.307. In
addition, we have determined that the Rule 428 and Regulation XI rules
satisfy the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) that regulations
submitted to the EPA for SIP approval be clear and legally enforceable,
and have determined that the submittals demonstrate in accordance with
CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) that the Districts have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law to carry out these proposed SIP
revisions.
    Our Technical Support Documents, which can be found in the docket
for this rule, contain a more detailed discussion of our analysis of
Rule 428 and Regulation XI.

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is proposing
to approve the submitted rules because they fulfill all relevant CAA
requirements. We have concluded that our approval of the submitted
rules would comply with the relevant provisions of CAA sections
110(a)(2), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 173, and 193, and 40 CFR 51.160-51.165
and 40 CFR 51.307.
    In support of this proposed action, we have concluded that our
action would comply with section 110(l) of the Act because approval of
CCAPCD Rule 428 and MCAPCD Regulation XI will not interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress, or any other CAA applicable requirement. In addition, our
approval of Rule 428 and Regulation XI will not relax any pre-November
15, 1990 requirement in the SIP, and therefore changes to the SIP
resulting from this action ensure greater or equivalent emission
reductions of ozone and its precursors in the District; accordingly, we
have concluded that our action is consistent with the requirements of
CAA section 193.
    If we finalize this action as proposed, our action will be codified
through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220a (Identification of plan-in part).
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until
August 19, 2020.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the rules listed in Table 1 of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document available
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at
the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

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.

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

    Dated: July 1, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 2020-14823 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM
TO: 		Air and Radiation Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0293
FROM: 	EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality
SUBJECT: 	Supporting Documentation for Jatropha Oil Production and Transport Greenhouse Gas Emissions

There are a number of spreadsheets on the docket containing data and calculations used in the analysis of greenhouse gases attributable to the production and transport of jatropha oil for biofuel. This memorandum provides additional explanation of the key assumptions used in our calculations and modeling.
Cultivation and Harvesting
Seed Yields and Oil Content
For the purposes of our analysis, we project that in 2022, on average, one hectare of jatropha grown in southern Mexico (specifically Yucatan, Oaxaca and Chiapas states) will yield five tonnes of dry seeds per year, while one hectare in Brazil will yield four tonnes per year.  For Mexico, five tonnes per hectare reflects a middle to upper bound estimate of recorded yields in the literature, but is conservative compared to current yields reported in the GCEH petition.  Table 1 summarizes Mexican jatropha yields reported in literature reviewed by EPA, with comments on each study.
Table 1. Mexico Dry Seed Yield Studies (tonnes per hectare per year)
Study
Yield
Comments
Almeida et al. (2011)
4.3
Direct observations and literature collected covering Mexico, Brazil, India, and Tanzania. Observations are from "jatropha entrepreneurs" so production scale is uncertain.
Achten & Verchot (2011)/
Skutsch et al. (2011)
3.7 to 11
Achten & Verchot (2011) Mexico values are based on those reported by Skutsch (2011) which are in turn based Mexican government and farmer expectations and do not reflect observed data.
Achten et al. (2008)
5
Nicaragua from personal communication.

4
Paraguay from personal communication.
Trabucco et al. (2010)
1.5 to 5
Estimated productivity of naturally occurring jatropha as a function of environmental and climate factors, yield range for Southern Mexico only. Yields in other regions are lower.

There are fewer recorded observed yields in northeastern Brazil;  however, based on environmental and climate characteristics as modeled by Trabucco et al. (2010), we expect jatropha yield in this region will be somewhat lower than yields in southern Mexico.  Table 2 summarizes Brazil jatropha yields reported in literature reviewed by EPA, with comments for each study.
Table 2. Brazil Dry Seed Yield Studies
Study
Yield (t/ha/yr)
Comments
Bailis & Baka (2010)
2 to 6
Midpoint based on model runs by Lapola et al. (2009) and should not be considered separate data point. High and low estimates added arbitrarily for sensitivity analysis, not based on observed data.
Lapola et al. (2010a)
3.7
Models runs of smallholder farms in NE Brazil
Trabucco et al. (2010)
2.5 to 3.5
Estimated productivity of naturally occurring jatropha as a function of environmental and climate factors, yield range for NE Brazil only. Yields in other regions are lower.

Our projections for average jatropha seed yields in Mexico and Brazil in the year 2022 are conservative because intensive jatropha cultivation is relatively new, with lots of room for potential advances through genetics, breeding and improved agronomic practices.
For jatropha grown in Mexico and Brazil in 2022 we project dry seed oil content of 35 percent by mass. This value is within the range of current values reported in the literature reviewed by EPA, and is also similar to the values reported in the GCEH petition.  (See Table 2-3 in the literature review conducted for this notice, which summarizes values reported in the literature.)  We view 35 percent seed oil content as a conservative projection for 2022 given the potential for increases through advances in breeding, genetics and crop management.
Preparation and Planting
Chemical and energy inputs are required when jatropha is first planted.  There is limited information available on the inputs and energy requirements for preparation and planting of jatropha.  We used values from the GCEH petition for inputs of diesel and fertilizers.  Based on information in Bailis and Baka (2010), we also assumed that jatropha production in Brazil would require the addition of two tonnes per hectare of agricultural lime, as the soils in Brazil are highly acidic.  However, based on information provided by GCEH in support of their petition, soils in Mexico would not require lime addition.  We used a weighted average of the planting areas in Mexico and Brazil to calculate an average lime addition of 1.11 tonnes per hectare.
There is a range of values found in the literature on the lifetime of typical jatropha plantations.  For example, Achten et al. (2008) and Achten et al. (2010) suggest a jatropha lifetime of 30-50 years, whereas Bailis and Baka (2010) use lifetimes of 20 and 30 years for their lifecycle analysis.  Our analysis assumes that jatropha has a 20 year crop cycle, meaning that every 20 years the existing jatropha plants are removed and the crop is replanted.  Accordingly, our analysis assumes the GHG emissions associated with preparation and planting occur every 20 years.  A lifetime of 20 years is a conservative estimate, because it is at the low end of the range reported in the literature, and emissions from preparation and planting will occur more frequently than if we assumed a longer replanting cycle.
Annual Inputs and Harvesting
In addition to emissions associated with preparation, planting and replanting, growing and harvesting jatropha requires crop inputs and energy use on an annual basis.
Fertilizer and Pesticide Inputs
We assumed that annual fertilizer inputs will have to at least make up for nutrients lost from harvesting jatropha fruits.  To determine the nutrients lost through removal of jatropha fruits, we used data from Bailis and Baka (2010), who also used this approach in their lifecycle analysis.  Bailis and Baka present data on the fertilizer requirements for a range of seed yields.  We interpolated these data to calculate the nutrients required for our assumed seed yields.
To replace the nutrients lost through fruit removal we assumed that husks and seedcake will be applied to the fields as a source of nutrients, as this is an approach commonly reported in the literature and the GCEH petition.  To calculate the nutrients added from these sources, we used the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium contents of different parts of the jatropha plant presented by Reinhardt et al. (2008).  For the seedcake, we used data from the GCEH petition and the literature review to determine the percent shells, seedcake, and residual oil present in the seedcake.  We used a weighted average of the nutrient content of each of these components to calculate the nutrient content of the seedcake.  We found that an additional 9.3 kg/ha of inorganic nitrogen fertilizer would need to be added to make up for nutrients lost from fruit harvesting.  As a conservative estimate, we assumed that 9.3 kg/ha of potassium and phosphorus fertilizers would be added as well, even though this would replace more potassium and phosphorus than is lost through fruit harvesting.  Details about these calculations can be found in the spreadsheets posted on the docket.
For pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides, we used values from Bailis and Baka (2010).  These value are based on surveys of jatropha growers in Brazil.  According to the surveys, two of six growers used herbicide, one used pesticide, and one used nematicides.  These growers typically applied these chemicals during the first 2-3 years of jatropha growth.  As a conservative estimate, we assumed that herbicides, pesticides, and nematicides would be used in the amounts reported by the growers that used these chemicals.  The emissions from pesticides, herbicides and insecticides are very small compared to the other GHG sources we evaluated.
Energy Use
We used inputs of diesel and electricity provided by the GCEH petition.  The electricity value used is a conservative/large estimate relative to other values in the literature, such as Fan et al. (2012), and the diesel value is within the range of values in the literature.  For example, Bailis and Baka (2010) assumed that jatropha fruit harvest would be manual, and that 5 L of diesel per hectare would be needed for mowing.  On the other hand, Reinhardt et al. (2008) assumed that 55-141 L of diesel per hectare would be needed for jatropha cultivation, depending on the yield.
Nitrous Oxide Emissions
Equations for direct and indirect emissions from fertilizer and crop residues (including husks, seedcake, and above and below ground residue from trees that are removed at the end of a crop cycle) are from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Limited data are available on the nitrogen content of the husks, seedcake, and tree residue.  Therefore, we used the best data available to us.  The nitrogen content of the husks and seedcake are from Reinhardt et al. (2008).  According to Stratton et al. (2010), these data are based on a 30-hectare test plot in India.  The nitrogen content of the above and below ground residue is from Jongschaap et al. (2007), which compiled data from three sources.
To calculate the amount of above ground residue, we used data from Bailis and Baka (2010) on the relationship between the above ground residue (excluding leaves) and the yield.  To this, we added the biomass from leaves, based on the ratio of leaf biomass to stem and branch biomass from Reinhardt et al. (2008).  The below ground residue was calculated based on the ratio of below ground residue to above ground biomass in Reinhardt et al. (2008).  For more information on these calculations, see the "Jatropha Oil Production and Transport GHG Calculations" spreadsheets posted on the docket for this notice.
Land Use Change and Agricultural Sector Emissions
Jatropha Biomass Carbon Stocks
We estimated the average amount of biomass carbon sequestered by jatropha plantations in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil, projected out to 2022.  Although there is relatively little data on jatropha plantations compared to other crops, jatropha biomass carbon stocks were estimated using available scientific information from the literature.  Reinhardt et al. measured basic data about jatropha plants, such as root to shoot ratios and biomass carbon content.  Bailis and Baka used the data from Reinhardt et al. to estimate biomass carbon stocks for different jatropha yield scenarios.  Using our projected jatropha yields of 5 and 4 tonnes per hectare per year for Mexico and Brazil respectively, we used the Bailis and Baka approach to estimate average biomass carbon stocks of 8.9 and 8.1 tonnes per hectare for ten year old jatropha plantations in Mexico and Brazil, respectively.  Per the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule, we translated these estimates into average biomass carbon stocks over 30 years.  Assuming linear growth rates, a 20 year replanting cycle and pruning of any growth after 10 years to ensure fruit accessibility, we estimated average jatropha plantation biomass carbon stocks over 30 years to be 6.9 and 6.3 tonnes per hectare for Mexico and Brazil respectively.
EPA's estimates for jatropha biomass carbon stocks are within the range of estimates in the literature for jatropha plantations in these regions.  For comparison, Skutsch et al. measured 70 jatropha plants in Mexico and categorized them into two groups: fast growing and moderate growing, the difference between these relating to the soil conditions where the plants were found.  Assuming linear growth rates and a planting density of 1,600 trees per hectare they estimated carbon stocks of 9.1 and 3.6 tonnes per hectare at ten years for fast and moderate growing plants, respectively.  Skutsch et al. assumed a 20 year planting cycle, and that any growth after 10 years would be pruned out to ensure that fruits are accessible for harvesting, implying that the biomass carbon stocks would stay constant for stands from 10 to 20 years of age.  The GCEH petition estimated the average biomass carbon stocks for their jatropha plantations in Mexico to be approximately 7 tonnes per hectare.  Bailis and Baka used data on jatropha seed yields in combination with root to shoot ratios measured by Reinhardt et al. (2008) to estimate biomass carbon stocks for mature jatropha plantations in Brazil.  Assuming 1,250 jatropha plants per hectare, they estimated 5-9 tonnes of biomass carbon per hectare for high yield and low yield jatropha plants respectively.  Bailis and McCarthy found that jatropha plantations in Brazil and India store 7.3-9.1 tonnes of carbon per hectare in above ground biomass and litter when managed with regular pruning.
There are other studies in the literature that report significantly lower biomass carbon stocks for jatropha plantations.  However, these studies looked at lower yielding jatropha production systems grown on less fertile land and/or using significantly lower crop inputs (e.g., fertilizer, irrigation).  Typically, these studies also looked at jatropha production in regions such as India, Africa and Southeast Asia that did not factor into our assessment.  We did not factor these studies into our assessment of jatropha biomass carbon stocks, because we focused our analysis on higher yielding, intensively managed plantations grown on traditional agricultural land in Mexico and Brazil.
Jatropha Grown on Unused Grassland Scenario
As explained in the notice, the first main scenario that we evaluated considers jatropha grown on otherwise unused grasslands in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil.  Mexico and Brazil grassland carbon stocks were estimated for the March 2010 RFS rule.  Per Harris et al. (2009), above- and belowground carbon stocks for grassland in Brazil were estimated to be 10.9 tonnes of carbon per hectare based on the average value reported in the literature for campo limpo (pure grassland).
To maintain a consistent global approach, for all countries except Brazil, carbon stocks in grasslands were estimated based on default biomass values given in Table 6.4 of the IPCC AFOLU Guidelines. These default values are presented by ecological zone. Therefore, grassland carbon stocks within each country reflect the area-weighted value based on the proportions of each ecological zone present within each country. Using this approach, biomass carbon stocks in Mexico were estimated to be 4.1 tonnes of carbon per hectare.
For grassland converted to jatropha, the only land use change emissions are associated with changes in biomass carbon stocks, meaning the difference between the average jatropha biomass carbon stocks and the average grassland biomass carbon stocks.  Per the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule, the resulting emissions are annualized over thirty years.
Based on the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule, we assume no change in soil carbon stocks averaged over thirty years when grasslands are converted to perennial crops such as jatropha.  For Brazil and Mexico we also assume that burning is not used as part of converting grasslands to jatropha.  For more information on the land use change calculations for this scenario, see the spreadsheets posted on the docket.
Jatropha Grown on Agricultural Land Scenario
In this scenario, we examined the possible impacts if jatropha directly displaced land that would have otherwise been used for agricultural production in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil.  As described in the associated Federal Register (FR) notice, for this analysis we used the Food and Agricultural Policy and Research Institute international models as maintained by the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University (the FAPRI-CARD model).  As explained in the FR notice, we conducted two simulations with the FAPRI-CARD model, one for jatropha cultivation in southern Mexico and one for cultivation in both southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil.
As described in the FR notice, we used a land displacement approach that allowed the model to shift or expand displaced crop and pasture areas to previously unused areas.  Using this approach, in both scenarios the FAPRI-CARD model projected that the area used for staple crop production in Mexico (e.g., corn, beans, wheat) would decline by more than the area displaced by jatropha, and in the scenario that included jatropha production in Brazil the model projected that pasture area would decrease by more than the area need for jatropha production and other crops displaced by jatropha.  These projections are the result of a number of factors including crop, livestock and land price changes projected by the model that incentivize intensification of crop and livestock production and other changes in crop and pasture land use.  As a conservative approach for GHG modeling, we adjusted the FAPRI-CARD results to eliminate the model's "extra" projected decreases in crop and pasture area in Mexico and Brazil beyond the area needed for jatropha and agricultural land displaced by jatropha.  In other words, as a conservative approach we assumed that growing jatropha in Mexico and Brazil would not result in less total crop and pasture area (including areas used for jatropha) compared to the control case that does not include jatropha.  The full results from these simulations are provided in spreadsheets available on the docket.
As explained in the notice, using the methodology developed for the March 2010 RFS rule we estimated the GHG emissions resulting from land use changes, changes in crop production (including for example emissions associated with changes in overall fertilizer use, energy use and nitrous oxide emissions), and changes in livestock production (including for example emissions associated with changes in energy use for livestock production, methane from enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide from manure).  The calculations for these emissions sources are included in the Jatropha Production and Transport GHG Calculations spreadsheets available on the docket.
Seed and Oil Transport
Based on information in the GCEH petition, we assumed that jatropha seeds are transported by truck 20 miles to a facility (for a 40 mile round trip), and that pre-treated jatropha oil is transported 75 miles by truck and then 500 miles by barge.  These distances are converted to emissions using the emission factors and equations in the Jatropha Production and Transport GHG Calculations spreadsheets posted to the docket.
Oil Extraction and Pretreatment
We assumed that oil is extracted by screw press.  The electricity and fuel needed for oil extraction is based on data in Bailis and Baka (2010).  As explained above in the "Seed Yields and Oil Content" section, we used a seed oil content of 35%.  We use an oil yield of 75% based on a review of the literature.  For mechanical screw press extraction, the reported extraction efficiency is 70-80%.
Inputs for oil pretreatment include chemicals (such as sodium hydroxide) and electricity.  For these inputs, we used values from the petition.  These values are within the range of values reported in the literature.
Consideration of Other LUC Scenarios
As explained in the FR notice and above, we evaluated two main scenarios: one where jatropha is grown on otherwise unused grasslands in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil and one where it is grown on land in southern Mexico and northeastern Brazil that would otherwise be used for crops or pasture.  While it is possible that jatropha could be grown on other types of land such as shrubland or secondary forest that would result in GHG emissions that are higher than soybean oil, the RFS program's qualification requirements for renewable biomass would limit the amount of this type of land that can be used to grow jatropha for the RFS program.  Furthermore, since jatropha is not currently being produced on a commercial scale and biofuel production is by far the largest potential market for jatropha oil (e.g., it is not suitable for cooking oil), EPA's approval of jatropha biofuel pathways for the RFS is unlikely to result in a situation where growing jatropha on RFS qualifying land would increase the amount of jatropha being grown on non-RFS qualifying lands for purposes other than production of renewable fuels (a situation that could result in significant indirect impacts).  Below we discuss information we considered to reach these conclusions, including studies on historical jatropha land use in Mexico and Brazil, the RFS renewable biomass provisions, and land use policies in Mexico and Brazil.
Historical Jatropha Land Use in Mexico and Brazil
Skutsch et al. evaluated land use change impacts for three jatropha case studies in Mexico.  The Mexican cases, established in 2007, evaluated smallholder systems in Chiapas and Michoacan states and a commercial production operation in Yucatan. They found two jatropha plantations in Yucatan, with combined area of 2,350 hectares that had been planted on estates that had been partially reforested after a period of low-intensity grazing.  The observed jatropha area in Chiapas and Michoacan was described as small, with no specific area figure provided.  In Chiapas, the authors found that 14 of the 21 jatropha farmers interviewed (all smallholders) had planted on fields previously used for maize and peanuts, whereas 6 farmers used pasture land and one had cleared a forest plot.  In other words, in Chiapas the case study looked at jatropha established on land previously used for 66% annual cropping, 29% pasture and 5% secondary forest.  In Michoacan much of the jatropha was planted by growers practicing a shifting cultivation system, of these growers more than half had cleared a patch of secondary forest to plant jatropha and the rest had used fields that had been maize the previous year.  In Michoacan jatropha was also observed on land permanently used for agriculture, and in a few areas of prime, irrigated land.  Overall, the previous land uses in Michoacan were 25% secondary forest, 25% fallow land (fallow for 8-11 years) and 50% annual cropping.   More recently, Soto et al. studied jatropha adoption by smallholders in the Mexican state of Chiapas.  Their survey found that 83% of jatropha producers cultivated in land occupied by subsistence crops (mostly maize and beans) and 2.3% used land previously occupied by cash crops.  According to information provided by GCEH about their plantations in southern Mexico, the initial set of parcels purchased in 2008 were almost 90% used for cattle grazing, with the remainder being low-density brush.  Subsequently, GCEH acquired land from an adjacent pig farmer that was consolidating operations.  In Brazil, Bailis and Baka surveyed jatropha producers located in central and northeast Brazil.  The producers that were approached had used primarily pasture land, with smaller areas of food crops and natural vegetation also cleared.  In general, we believe these findings support our approach of evaluating the GHG impacts of jatropha production on otherwise unused grassland, and jatropha production on land otherwise used for crops or pasture.  As discussed below, we believe the RFS renewable biomass provisions will limit the amount of other direct or indirect land use change impacts that are not already accounted for in our modeling.
Renewable Biomass Provisions
While it is possible that jatropha could be grown on other types of land such as shrubland or secondary forest that would result in GHG emissions that are higher than what we estimated through our modeling, the RFS program's qualification requirements for renewable biomass would limit the amount of this type of land that can be used to grow jatropha for the RFS program.  For example, oil extracted from jatropha seeds grown on land that was forested or not actively managed or fallow on December 19, 2007 would not meet the RFS program definition of renewable biomass at 40 CFR 80.1401.  Per the regulatory definition at 40 CFR 80.1401, renewable biomass includes, "Planted crops and crop residue harvested from existing agricultural land cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007 and that was nonforested and either actively managed or fallow on December 19, 2007."  There are a number of different types of land that may be suitable to grow jatropha from an agronomic or economic perspective, but that would not align with the RFS regulatory definition for renewable biomass, for example this includes all of the following types of land (not intended to be an exhaustive list):
   * Previously undisturbed forest.
   * Land that was not previously cleared or cultivated prior to December 19, 2007.
   * Land that was forested on December 19, 2007.
   * Land that was not actively managed or fallow on December 19, 2007.
In other words, the RFS regulations exclude the use of many of the types of land that would result in higher land use change GHG emissions than the types of land used for jatropha in our modeling.  However, the following types of land if used for jatropha production could result in higher land use change emissions than the types of land considered in our modeling: land that was actively managed or fallow on December 19, 2007 that grew back as secondary forest before being planted with jatropha, and such land that would grow back as secondary forest if it is not planted with jatropha.
EPA also considered information on government policies that could influence the types of land used for future jatropha production. In Mexico, jatropha production is promoted by CONAFOR through the ProAborl Programme, which aims to provide financial and technical assistance to all types of landowners to protect, conserve, restore and sustainably manage their forest resources.  Information provided as part of the GCEH petition indicates that CONAFOR does not promote jatropha plantations that would replace forested areas.  While EPA does not have data to verify the impacts of this policy, it could discourage the use of secondary forest land for jatropha production.  Brazil also has a number of policies to reduce deforestation rates, but EPA has not conducted a detailed review of how these policies may impact the types of land used for jatropha production in Brazil.
Overall, our review of available information on jatropha land use in Mexico and Brazil suggests that the scenarios we modeled adequately capture the likely land use change impacts of future jatropha production for use in making biofuels for the RFS program.  Based on our modeling, if relatively small areas of high carbon stock land are cleared for jatropha plantations we believe the conclusions described in the notice preamble would still apply because the GHG impacts would be offset by jatropha grown on the types of land considered in our modeling.

References
Achten, Wouter M. J., and Louis V. Verchot. 2011. "Implications of Biodiesel-Induced Land-Use Changes for CO2 Emissions: Case Studies in Tropical America, Africa, and Southeast Asia." Ecology and Society 16 (4). doi:10.5751/ES-04403-160414.
Achten, W.M.J., L.R. Nielsen, R. Aerts, A.G. Lengkeek, E.D. Kjaer, A. Trabucco, J.K. Hansen, W.H. Maes, L. Graudal, F.K. Akinnifesi, and B. Muys. 2010. "Towards Domestication of Jatropha Curcas." Biofuels 1(1):91-107. doi:10.4155/bfs.09
Achten, W.M.J., L. Verchot, Y.J. Franken, E. Mathijs, V.P. Singh, R. Aerts, and B. Muys. 2008. "Jatropha Bio-diesel Production and Use." Biomass and Bioenergy 32(12):1063-1084. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.03.003
Almeida, J. W.M.J. Achten, M.P. Duarte, B. Mendes, and B. Muys. 2011. "Benchmarking the Environmental Performance of the Jatropha Biodiesel System through a Generic Life Cycle Assessment." Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(12): 5447-5453. doi:10.1021/es200257m.
Bailis, Robert E. and Jennifer E. Baka. 2010. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Change from Jatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil." Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(22): 8684-8691. doi:10.1021/es1019178.
Fan, J., R. M. Handler, D.R. Shonnard, and T.N. Kalnes. 2012. "A Review of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Hydroprocessed Jet Fuels from Renewable Oils and Fats." International Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering Research 3(3):114-138.
Harris, NL, S. Grimland and S. Brown. 2009. Land Use Change and Emission Factors: Updates since Proposed RFS Rule. Report submitted to EPA, EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2006). "N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application."  2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use. Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., and Tanube, K (eds). Published: IGES, Japan.
Jongschaap, R.E.E., W.J. Corré, P.S. Bindraban, and W.A. Brandenburg. 2007. Claims and Facts on Jatropha curcas L. Global Jatropha curcas Evaluation, Breeding and Propagation Programme. Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands. Report 158. Plant Research International B.V. Available at: http://www.fact-fuels.org/media_en/Claims_and_Facts_on_Jatropha_-WUR. Accessed on August 10, 2008.
Lapola, David M., Ruediger Schaldach, Joseph Alcamo, Alberte Bondeau, Jennifer Koch, Christina Koelking, and Joerg A. Priess. 2010a. "Indirect Land-use Changes Can Overcome Carbon Savings from Biofuels in Brazil." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (February 8). doi:10.1073/pnas.0907318107.
Lapola, David M., Ruediger Schaldach, Joseph Alcamo, Alberte Bondeau, Jennifer Koch, Christina Koelking, and Joerg A. Priess. 2010b. "Supporting Information for Indirect Land-use Changes Can Overcome Carbon Savings from Biofuels in Brazil." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (February 8).
Reinhardt, G., K. Becker, D.R. Chaudhary, J. Chikara, E. von Falkenstein, G. Francis, S.O. Gartner, MR.R. Gandhi, A. Ghosh, P.K. Ghosh, H.P.S. Makkar, J. Münch, J.S. Patolia, M.P. Reddy, N. Rettenmaier, S.C. Upadhyay. 2008. "Basic Data for Jatropha Production and Use." Heidelberg, Germany: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH.
Skutsch, Margaret, Emilio de los Rios, Silvia Solis, Enrique Riegelhaupt, Daniel Hinojosa, Sonya Gerfert, Yan Gao, and Omar Masera. 2011. "Jatropha in Mexico: Environmental and Social Impacts of an Incipient Biofuel Program." Ecology and Society. 16(4): 11. doi:10.5751/ES-04448-160411.
Soto, I., Achten, W.M.J, Muys, B., Mathjis, E. 2015. Who benefits from energy policy incentives? The case of jatropha adoption by smallholders in Mexico. Energy Poicy, 79: 37-47
Stratton, R.W., H.M. Wong, and J.I. Hileman. 2010. "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative Jet Fuels." Partnership for Air Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction Project 28. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Trabucco, Antonio, Wouter M. J. Achten, Colm Bowe, Raf Aerts, Jos Van Orshoven, Lindsey Norgrove, and Bart Muys. 2010. "Global Mapping of Jatropha Curcas Yield Based on Response of Fitness to Present and Future Climate." GCB Bioenergy 2 (3): 139 - 151. doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01049.x.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39946-39947]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17738]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2001-10654]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that on July 13, 2017,
the Association of American Railroads (AAR) has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension and expansion of an
existing waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 213. FRA assigned
the petition docket number FRA-2001-10654.
    AAR, on behalf of its member railroads, received permission from
FRA to operate trains at Class 5 speeds over ``heavy-point'' frogs
(HPF) with guard check gages conforming to the standards for Class 4
track frogs on April 22, 2003. AAR requested and was granted two
extensions, dated February 25, 2008 and January 18, 2013. The current
waiver will expire on January 18, 2018.
    In the current petition, AAR requests an extension of the existing
relief from 49 CFR 213.143--Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage, to
continue operating trains at FRA Class 5 speeds over HPF with guard-
check gage conforms to the standards prescribed for FRA Class 4

track frog guard check and face gage dimensions. In addition, AAR is
requesting that FRA amend the waiver to include relief from 49 CFR
213.355--Frog guard rails and guard faces; gage to allow trains to
operate at Class 6 speeds over HPF designs with guard-check gages
conforming to the standards for Class 4 track frog guard check and face
gage dimensions.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by October 6, 2017 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 2017.
John Karl Alexy,
Director, Office of Safety Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-17738 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


From: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov [ mailto: Kissell. Mary@ epamail. epa. gov] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 2: 40 PM To: Chad Darby SECOR Email Subject: Re: Plywood MACT: Production Based Limits The proposed rule requires that the production based compliance option be met before controls. You cannot use control devices to meet the production based compliance option. We received comment on this issue and EPA may change the requirements for the final rule; however, my recommendation to EPA management is to include the proposed requirements in the final rule wihout change. The final rule will be signed in February 2004.

You can use emissions averaging with a biofilter to achieve the required reduction. ( You cannot use emissions averaging with the production based compliance option.)

Chad Darby SECOR Email To: Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA < cdarby@ secor. com> cc: Subject: Plywood MACT: Production Based Limits 08/ 21/ 03 07: 42 PM Mary Tom, Could you please clarify a few points for me?

1. If a facility wishes to comply with production based limitations for the Plywood MACT, can they do so by installing controls that do not necessarily meet the control requirements of the standard?

The reason I ask is that I am interested in the possible use of biofiltration at a facility, but am concerned that it may not meet 90% overall control efficiency. However, if it were to meet 70% efficiency, then the production based limits of the dryer could be met.

2. In the example above, if a dryer is to be controlled by biofiltration and it turns out to be only 85% efficient. Can the facility calculate the amount of emissions resulting from the 5% of control efficiency that the device falls short of and offset this with emissions averaging for another source.

Example. A dryer has 100 tons of total HAPs emissions with a biofiltration system that is only 85% efficient. If the control device were 90% efficient overall ( as is required by the standard) then 5 more tons of HAPs would have been destroyed. Since the biofilter cannot be improved, can the facility control 5 tons of press vent HAPs?

Thanks for your help on this. I look eagerly toward your comments.

Chad Darby Senior Engineer, M. S. M. E. SECOR International Incorporated 7730 SW Mohawk St Tualatin, OR 97062 Ph. ( 503) 691 2030 Fax ( 503) 692 7074 cdarby@ secor. com


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 219 (Monday, November 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70439-70440]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2225-015--WA]

Sullivan Creek Project, Public Utility District No 1 of Pend
Oreille County; Notice of Teleconference

    a. Date and Time of Meeting: Monday, November 21, 2011 at 10:30
a.m. (Pacific Time).
    b. Place: By copy of this notice we are inviting all interested
parties to attend a teleconference from their location.
    c. FERC Contact: Frank Winchell,<PHONE_NUMBER>:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    d. Purpose of the Meeting: Commission staff will be meeting with
the Pend Oreille PUD, Forest Service, Washington State Historic
Preservation Office, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and
Kalispel Tribe to go over associated memorandum of agreements for
cultural resources.
    e. All local, State, and Federal agencies, Indian tribes, and
interested parties are hereby invited to listen in on

the teleconference. The phone number and passcode to the teleconference
will be provided upon a request made by interested parties to Frank
Winchell. All requests for the teleconference phone number and passcode
must be made No Later Than 1:30 p.m. (Pacific Time), November 16, 2011.

    Dated: November 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29245 Filed 11-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47029-47034]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17060]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0854; FRL-9949-00-Region 10]

Air Plan Approval; Oregon; Medford Area Carbon Monoxide Second
10-Year Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve a second 10-year carbon monoxide (CO) limited
maintenance plan (LMP) for the Medford area in Oregon, submitted by the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (tODEQ) on December 11,
2015, along with a supplementary submittal on December 30, 2015, as a
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). In accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is approving this SIP
revision because it demonstrates that the Medford area will continue to
meet the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a second
10-year period beyond redesignation, through 2025.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 19, 2016, without further
notice, unless the EPA receives adverse comment by August 19, 2016. If
the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2015-0854 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting

comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Chi, Air Planning Unit, Office of
Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 6th
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. This Action
II. Background
III. Evaluation of Oregon's Submittal
    A. Base Year Emission Inventory
    B. Demonstration of Maintenance
    C. Control Measures
    D. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment
    E. Contingency Plan
    F. Transportation and General Conformity
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. This Action

    The EPA is approving the carbon monoxide limited maintenance plan
(CO LMP) submitted by the ODEQ, on December 11, 2015, along with a
supplementary submittal on December 30, 2015, (the submittal) for the
Medford area. A LMP is a means of meeting Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for formerly designated nonattainment areas that meet
certain qualification criteria. This CO LMP is designed to keep the
Medford area in attainment with the CO standard for a second 10-year
period beyond redesignation, through 2025.

II. Background

    Under section 107(d)(1)(c) of the CAA, each CO area designated
nonattainment prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments, such as
Medford, was designated nonattainment by operation of law upon
enactment of the 1990 Amendments. Under section 186(a) of the CAA, each
CO area designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was also
classified by operation of law as either ``moderate'' or ``serious''
depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. CO areas
with design values between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per million (ppm), such
as Medford, were classified as moderate. These nonattainment
designations and classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81 on
November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56695).
    On July 24, 2002, the EPA approved the ODEQ's request to
redesignate the Medford area to attainment of the CO standard (67 FR
48388). In that action, the EPA also approved the maintenance plan
required under CAA section 175A(a) to provide for 10 years of
maintenance of the CO standard in the Medford area through the year
2015 (67 FR 48388).
    As required by the CAA section 175A(b), the SIP submittal provides
a second 10-year plan for maintaining the CO standard in the Medford
area until 2025. For the second 10-year maintenance plan, the ODEQ
chose the option as described in an EPA October 6, 1995 memorandum from
Joseph Paisie, the Group Leader of the Integrated Policy and Strategies
Group, titled, ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Nonclassifiable CO
Nonattainment Areas'' (LMP Option). To qualify for the LMP Option, the
CO design value for an area, based on the eight consecutive quarters
(two years of data) used to demonstrate attainment, must be at or below
7.65 ppm (85 percent of the CO NAAQS). In addition, the control
measures from the first CO maintenance plan must remain in place.
    The EPA has determined that the LMP Option for CO is also available
to all states as part of the CAA 175A(b) update to the maintenance
plans, regardless of the original nonattainment classification, or lack
thereof. Thus, the EPA finds that although the Medford area was
designated as a moderate nonattainment area for the CO NAAQS,
redesignation to attainment status in conjunction with meeting all
requirements of the October 6, 1995, memorandum, allows the ODEQ to be
eligible to submit a LMP as the update to its original maintenance plan
per section 175A(b) of the CAA.

III. Evaluation of Oregon's Submittal

    The requirements of the LMP Option and the EPA's evaluation of how
each requirement has been met by the ODEQ's submittal is summarized
below.

A. Base Year Emission Inventory

    The LMP must contain an attainment year emissions inventory to
identify a level of CO emissions in the area that is sufficiently low
enough to attain the CO NAAQS. The submittal contains a summary of the
CO emissions inventory for the Medford area for the base year 2008. The
emission inventory lists CO emissions by general source category--
stationary point sources, stationary area sources, on-road mobile
sources and non-road mobile sources. On-road mobile sources emissions
for the 2008 base year inventory were estimated with the EPA's Motor
Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010b.\1\ The methods used to
determine the Medford area CO emission inventory are consistent with
the EPA's most recent guidance on developing emission inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ MOVES2010b was the most current model available at the time
that ODEQ was performing its analysis. The EPA released MOVES2014 on
October 7, 2014 (79 FR 60343).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Historically, exceedances of the CO standard in the Medford area
have occurred during the winter months, when cooler temperatures
contribute to incomplete combustion, and when CO emissions are trapped
near the ground by atmospheric inversions. Sources of carbon monoxide
include industry, motor vehicles, non-road mobile sources, (e.g.,
construction equipment, recreational vehicles, lawn and garden
equipment, and area sources (e.g., outdoor burning, woodstoves,
fireplaces, and wildfires). The three consecutive months--December
through February define the typical CO season. As such, season day
emissions in addition to annual emissions are included in the
inventory. The unit of measure for annual emissions is in tons per year
(tpy), while the unit of measure for season day emissions is in pounds
per day (lb/day). The county-wide emissions inventory data is spatially
allocated to the Medford urban growth boundary (UGB), and to buffers
around the UGB, depending on emissions category.

        2008 Emissions Inventory, Main Source Category Subtotals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Annual       CO emissions
          Main source category            emissions tons    pounds per
                                             per year       winter day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stationary Point Sources................         2.367.1          13,159
On-road Mobile Sources..................         5,730.0          28,731
Non-road Mobile Sources.................         4,488.2          10,061
Stationary Area Sources.................         3,333.1          30,399
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................        15,927.4          82,350
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Demonstration of Maintenance

    The CO NAAQS is attained when the annual second highest 8-hour
average CO concentration for an area does not exceed a concentration of
9.0 ppm. The last monitored violation of the CO NAAQS in the Medford
area occurred in 1991, and CO levels have been steadily in decline. The
second highest 8-hour CO concentration in 2009 was 2.4 ppm, which is in
attainment with the CO NAAQS.
    For areas that meet the criteria to use the LMP Option, the
maintenance plan demonstration requirement is considered to be
satisfied. The EPA believes that if the area begins the maintenance
period at, or below, 85 percent of the level of the CO 8-hour NAAQS (at
or below 7.65 ppm), the applicability of prevention of significant
deterioration requirements, the control measures already in the SIP,
and Federal control measures already in place will provide adequate
assurance of maintenance over the maintenance period. Thus, there is no
requirement to project emissions of air quality over the upcoming
maintenance period. The second highest 8-hour CO concentration for
Medford based on the two most recent years of data (2008-2009) is 2.4
ppm, which is significantly below the LMP Option requirement of 7.65
ppm.\2\ Therefore, the EPA finds that the ODEQ has demonstrated that
the Medford area qualifies for the LMP Option and has satisfied the
maintenance demonstration requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The years 2008-2009 are the most recent two years for
available monitoring data because monitoring was discontinued after
2009. The ODEQ has developed an alternate method to verify continued
attainment of the CO NAAQS, discussed in the next section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Control Measures

    The submittal retains the control measures from the first CO
maintenance plan (67 FR 48388). The primary control measure has been
the emission standards for new motor vehicles under the Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program. Other control measures have been the Major New
Source Review Program with Best Available Control Technology (BACT),
Motor Vehicle Inspection Program, and a woodsmoke curtailment program.
As stated above, the EPA believes that the Medford area will continue
to maintain the standard with the continued implementation of these
control measures along with meeting the other requirements to qualify
for the LMP option.

D. Monitoring Network and Verification of Continued Attainment

    Monitored CO levels in the Medford area have declined progressively
since 1991. CO levels have declined significantly across the nation
through motor vehicle emissions controls and fleet turnover to newer,
cleaner vehicle models. Once CO levels declined and continued to stay
well below the NAAQS, the ODEQ requested to remove the Medford CO
monitor in 2009 and the EPA approved the request on October 14, 2010.
The ODEQ now has been using an alternate method of verifying continued
attainment with the CO standard based on the regional emissions
analysis conducted by the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization and by using the Portland CO monitor to track trends in
general CO levels. Both the ODEQ report and the EPA network approval
letter are included in the materials of this docket.
    Under the Medford CO LMP, the ODEQ will verify continued attainment
of the CO NAAQS by conducting a review of CO emissions inventory data
for the Medford area. The ODEQ will calculate CO emissions every three
years as part of the Statewide Emissions Inventory, which is submitted
to the EPA for inclusion in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The
ODEQ commits to review the NEI estimates to identify any increases over
the 2008 emission levels (see the base year emissions inventory in this
section) and report on them in the annual monitoring network plan for
the applicable year. Because on-road mobile sources and stationary area
sources are the predominant sources of CO in Medford, these source
categories will be the primary focus of the ODEQ's review. The ODEQ
will evaluate any increase in CO emissions to confirm it is not due to
a change in emission calculation methodology, an exceptional event, or
other factor not representative of an actual emissions increase.

E. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions necessary to ensure prompt correction of any
violations of the standard that may occur. The ODEQ has submitted a
revised contingency plan that has three phase of action. The initial
contingency plan trigger is a ``significant increase'' in the emissions
inventory, which is defined as ten percent above the 2008 emissions
inventory levels. The three phases of actions are as follows:
    Phase 1. If the three-year review of CO emissions shows a
significant increase in emissions, the ODEQ will reestablish ambient CO
monitoring in Medford.
    Phase 2. If the monitoring data indicates that the LMP eligibility
level of 7.65 ppm (85 percent of the 8-hr standard) is exceeded, the
ODEQ will evaluate the cause of the CO increase, and investigate
corrective strategies.
    Phase 3. If a validated violation of the CO standard occurs, in
addition to Phase 2 above, the ODEQ will replace the BACT requirement
for new and expanding industry with Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
(LAER); reinstate CO emissions offset requirements for new and
expanding industry; and consider other CO emission reduction measures.

F. Transportation and General Conformity

    Federal transportation conformity rules (40 CFR parts 51 and 93)
and general conformity rules (58 FR 63214) continue to apply under a
LMP. However, as noted in the LMP Option memo, these requirements are
greatly simplified. An area under a LMP can demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget, and as a result, emissions do
not need to be capped nor does a regional emissions

analysis (including modeling) need to be conducted.
    On April 28, 2016, the EPA found the Medford CO LMP to be adequate
for transportation conformity purposes (81 FR 25394). Although regional
emissions are no longer required as part of the transportation
conformity determinations for CO for the Medford area, other
transportation conformity requirements continue to apply to the area,
such as consultation, transportation control measures, and project
level conformity requirements. The Medford area will continue to be
exempt from performing a regional emission analysis, but must meet
project-level conformity analyses as well as transportation conformity
areas.

IV. Final Action

    In accordance with the requirements of the CAA, the EPA is
approving the Medford CO LMP submitted by the ODEQ on December 11,
2015, and supplemented on December 30, 2015. The ODEQ has adequately
demonstrated that the Medford area qualifies for the LMP option and
will maintain the CO NAAQS through the second 10-year maintenance
period through 2025.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action 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).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of the Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition
for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 30, 2016.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.1970, paragraph (e), table titled ``State of Oregon
Air Quality Control Program'' by revising ``Section 4'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                   State of Oregon Air Quality Control Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      SIP citation            Title/subject     State effective date    EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 4...............  Control Strategies    4.1, 12/19/1980.....  4.1, 4/12/1982, 47    4.1 Portland-
                           for Nonattainment                           FR 15587.             Vancouver TSP
                           Areas.                                                            Attainment Plan.
                                                4.2, 7/16/1982......  4.2, 10/7/1982, 47    4.2 Portland-
                                                                       FR 44261.             Vancouver CO
                                                                                Attainment Plan.
                                                4.3, 7/16/1982......  4.3, 10/7/1982, 47    4.3 Portland-
                                                                       FR 44261.             Vancouver Ozone
                                                                                Attainment Plan.
                                                4.4, 6/20/1979......  4.4, 6/24/1980, 45    4.4 Salem CO
                                                                       FR 42265.             Attainment Plan.
                                                4.5, 9/19/1980......  4.5, 4/12/1982, 47    4.5 Salem Ozone
                                                                       FR 15587.             Attainment Plan.
                                                4.6, 1/30/1981......  4.6, 4/12/1982, 47    4.6 Eugene-
                                                                       FR 15587.             Springfield TSP
                                                                                Attainment Plan.
                                                4.7, 6/20/1979......  4.7, 6/24/1980, 45    4.7 Eugene-
                                                                       FR 42265.             Springfield CO
                                                                                Attainment Plan.
                                                4.7, 12/9/1988......  4.7, 12/6/1993, 58    4.7 Eugene-
                                                                       FR 64161.             Springfield CO
                                                                                Maintenance Plan.
                                                4.8, 1/25/85........  4.8, 6/4/1986, 51 FR  4.8 Medford-Ashland
                                                                       20285.                Ozone, Maintenance
                                                                                Plan.
                                                4.9, 10/15/1982.....  4.9, 2/13/1987, 52    4.9 Medford-Ashland
                                                                       FR 4620.              CO Attainment Plan.
                                                4.10, 4/1983........  4.10, 8/15/1984, 49   4.10 Medford-Ashland
                                                                       FR 32574.             TSP, Attainment
                                                                                Plan.
                                                4.11, 10/24/1986....  4.11, 1/15/1988, 53   4.11 Grants Pass CO,
                                                                       FR 1020.              Attainment Plan.
                                                4.12, 8/18/1995.....  4.12, 4/14/1997, 62   4.12 Klamath Falls
                                                                       FR 18047.             PM-10 Attainment
                                                                                Plan.
                                                4.13, 11/13/1991....  4.13, 12/17/1993, 58  4.13 Grants Pass PM-
                                                                       FR 65934.             10 Attainment Plan.
                                                4.14, 9/9/2005......  4.14, 6/19/2006, 71   4.14 Medford PM-10
                                                                       FR 35163.             Attainment and
                                                                                Maintenance Plan.
                                                4.15, 11/8/1991.....  4.15, 2/15/1995, 60   4.15 La Grande PM-10
                                                                       FR 8563.              Attainment Plan.
                                                4.16, 1/31/1991.....  4.16, 8/24/1994, 59   4.16 Eugene-
                                                                       FR 43483.             Springfield PM-10
                                                                                Attainment Plan.
                                                4.17, 11/20/2000,     4.17, 9/20/2001, 66   4.17 Klamath Falls
                                                 (submittal date).     FR 48340.             CO Maintenance
                                                                                Plan.
                                                4.18, 11/4/1996.....  4.18, 3/15/1999, 64   4.18 Oakridge PM-10
                                                                       FR 12751.             Attainment Plan.
                                                4.19, 6/1/1995,       4.19, 9/21/1999, 64   4.19 Lakeview PM-10
                                                 (submittal date).     FR 51051.             Attainment Plan.
                                                4.50, 8/14/1996.....  4.50, 5/19/1997, 62   4.50 Portland/
                                                                       FR 27204.             Vancouver Ozone
                                                                                Maintenance Plan.
                                                4.50, 4/12/2007.....  4.50, 12/19/2011, 76  4.50 Portland-
                                                                       FR 78571.             Vancouver AQMA
                                                                                (Oregon portion) &
                                                                                Salem Kaizer Area 8-
                                                                                hour Ozone
                                                                                (110(a)(1)
                                                                                Maintenance Plan.
                                                4.51, 7/12/1996.....  4.51, 9/2/1997, 62    4.51 Portland CO
                                                                       FR 46208.             Maintenance Plan.
                                                4.52, 3/9/2001......  4.52, 7/24/2002, 67   4.52 Medford CO
                                                                       FR 48388.             Maintenance Plan.
                                                4.53, 9/10/1999.....  4.53, 8/31/2000, 65   4.53 Grants Pass CO
                                                                       FR 52932.             Maintenance Plan.
                                                4.55, 10/4/2002.....  4.55, 10/27/2003, 68  4.55 Grants Pass PM-
                                                                       FR 61111.             10 Maintenance
                                                                                Plan.
                                                4.56, 10/4/2002.....  4.56, 10/21/2003, 68  4.56 Klamath Falls
                                                                       FR 60036.             PM-10 Maintenance
                                                                                Plan.
                                                4.57, 6/28/2007.....  4.57, 12/30/2008, 73  4.57 Salem-Keizer
                                                                       FR 79655.             Area CO, Limited
                                                                                Maintenance Plan.
                                                4.58, 12/15/2004....  4.58, 1/24/2006, 71   4.58 Portland Area
                                                                       FR 3768.              CO Maintenance Plan
                                                                                2nd 10-year.
                                                4.58, 12/11/2013....  4.58, 5/22/2014, 79   4.58 Portland Area
                                                                       FR 29360.             CO Maintenance Plan
                                                                                2nd 10-year; TCM
                                                                                substitution update
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>.2.
                                                4.59, 9/9/2005......  4.59, 6/19/2006, 71   4.59 La Grande PM10
                                                                       FR 35161.             Maintenance Plan.

                                                4.60, 9/9/2005......  4.60, 6/19/2006, 71   4.60 Lakeview PM10
                                                                       FR 35159.             Maintenance Plan.
                                                4.61, 9/26/2011.....  4.61, 4/11/2013, 78   4.61 Eugene-
                                                                       FR 21547.             Springfield PM10
                                                                                Limited Maintenance
                                                                                Plan.
                                                4.62, 12/12/2012....  4.62, 6/6/2016, 81    4.62, Klamath Falls
                                                                       FR 36178.             PM2.5 Attainment
                                                                                Plan.
                                                4.63, 4/16/2015.....  4.63, 7/28/2015, 80   4.63 Grants Pass
                                                                       FR 44867.             Second 10-Year
                                                                                Carbon Monoxide
                                                                                Limited Maintenance
                                                                                Plan.
                                                4.64, 4/16/2015.....  4.64, 7/30/2015 80    4.64 Grants Pass
                                                                       FR 45435.             Second 10-Year PM10
                                                                                Limited Maintenance
                                                                                Plan.
                                                4.65, 12/11/2015....  4.65 7/20/2016        4.65 Medford Second
                                                                       [Insert Federal       10-Year Carbon
                                                                       Register citation].   Monoxide Limited
                                                                                Maintenance Plan.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-17060 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P