[Federal Register: January 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 16)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4133-4136]
[DOCID:fr24ja08-42]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0532-200724; FRL-8520-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alabama
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Alabama on June 16, 2006. The
proposed revisions modify Alabama's Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR)
regulations in the SIP to address changes to the federal New Source
Review (NSR) permitting regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on
December 31, 2002, and reconsidered with minor changes on November 7,
2003 (collectively, these two final actions are called the ``2002 NSR
Reform Rules''). The proposed revisions include provisions for baseline
emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for
calculating emissions changes, options for plantwide applicability
limits (PAL), and recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The June
16, 2006, submittal also contained provisions to address the Clean Air
Interstate Rule, on which EPA has already taken action. As requested by
Alabama on December 3, 2007, at this time, EPA is not taking action on
a proposed revision found in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(w)1, which
establishes a significance threshold for all NSR regulated pollutants
for which there is not a listed significance threshold.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2007-0532, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2007-0532,'' Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Gracy R. Danois, Air Permits
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2007-0532. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Alabama
State Implementation Plan, contact Ms. Stacy Harder, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding New Source Review,
contact Ms. Gracy R. Danois, Air Permits Section, at the same address
above. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Danois can also be
reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, references to
``EPA,'' ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our,'' are intended to mean the
Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is
arranged as follows:

I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. Why is EPA proposing this action?
III. What is EPA's analysis of Alabama's NSR rule revisions?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action is EPA Proposing?

    On June 16, 2006, the State of Alabama, through the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), submitted revisions to
the SIP. Specifically, the proposed SIP revisions include changes to
ADEM Administrative Code (AAC) Division 3 Code (Air Division), Chapter
14, entitled ``Air Permits.'' ADEM submitted these revisions in
response to EPA's December 31, 2002, revisions to the federal NSR
program. EPA is now proposing to approve these SIP revisions with the
exception of the requirements found in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(w)1, the
portion of the definition of ``significant'' that establishes a
significance threshold of 100 tons for all NSR regulated pollutants for
which there is not a listed significant amount.

On December 3, 2007, Alabama requested that this portion of the
definition not be approved into the SIP. Additionally, the June 16,
2006, submittal also addressed the Clean Air Interstate Rule which EPA
has already taken action on separately.

II. Why is EPA Proposing This Action?

    On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52,
regarding the Clean Air Act's (CAA or Act) PSD and NNSR programs. On
November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA published a notice of final action
on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), final
rule changes. In that November 7, 2003, final action, EPA added the
definition of ``replacement unit,'' and clarified an issue regarding
PAL. The December 31, 2002, and the November 7, 2003, final actions are
collectively referred to as the ``2002 NSR Reform Rules.'' The purpose
of this action is to propose to approve the SIP submittal from the
State of Alabama, which addresses EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This action is not addressing any issues related to the
Alabama NSR program that were not part of the June 16, 2006,
submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts
C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in
areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)--
``attainment'' areas--as well as in areas for which there is
insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the
NAAQS--``unclassifiable'' areas. Part D of title I of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the NNSR program, which applies in areas that are
not in attainment of the NAAQS--``nonattainment'' areas. Collectively,
the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the ``New Source Review''
or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are
contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.24, and part 51, appendix S.
    The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting
programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air
pollution regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include
a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control
technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public
health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets
those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for
approval, a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to
contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and
modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that
the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air;
to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national
parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls
are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development
consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of the consequences of the decision.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: (1) Provided a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopted an actual-to-
projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major
modification has occurred; (3) allowed major stationary sources to
comply with PAL to avoid having a significant emissions increase that
triggers the requirements of the major NSR program; (4) provided a new
applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean
units; and (5) excluded pollution control projects (PCPs) from the
definition of ``physical change or change in the method of operation.''
On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice of final action on its
reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (68 FR 63021), which added
a definition for ``replacement unit'' and clarified an issue regarding
PALs. For additional information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see, 67
FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and http://www.epa.gov/nsr.

    After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March
3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged
numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of
EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC
Circuit Court) issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In
summary, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated portions of the rules
pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a
portion of the rules regarding recordkeeping, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)
and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not comment on the
other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
    On March 8, 2007, EPA responded to the Court's remand regarding the
recordkeeping provisions by proposing two alternative options to
clarify what constitutes ``reasonable possibility'' and when the
``reasonable possibility'' recordkeeping requirements apply (72 FR
10445). The ``reasonable possibility'' standard identifies for sources
and reviewing authorities the circumstances under which a major
stationary source undergoing a modification that does not trigger major
NSR must keep records. On December 14, 2007, EPA issued a final
rulemaking establishing that ``reasonable possibility'' applies where
source emissions equal or exceed 50% of the CAA NSR significance levels
for any pollutant. This rule will be effective 30 days after its
publication in the Federal Register. For further information, see,
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/documents/ReasPos_final.pdf.

    On June 13, 2007, EPA took final action to revise the 2002 NSR
reform rules to exclude the portions that were vacated by the D.C.
Circuit Court (72 FR 32526). This proposed action is consistent with
the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court because Alabama's June 2006 SIP
submittal, now being proposed for approval, does not include any
portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were vacated as part of the
June 2005 decision.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Since April 13, 1999, the AAC has included a provision
entitled, ``environmental beneficial projects,'' which was approved
into the SIP on November 3, 1999, long before the 2002 NSR reform
rules. This provision operates in much the same manner as the
vacated PCP provision. Consistent with EPA's June 13, 2007, direct
final action regarding the vacatur of the PCP provision, Alabama
should remove this provision from the SIP at the earliest
opportunity because a federal appeals court has found that a similar
federal provision is contrary to the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and
submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the
minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than
January 2, 2006. (Consistent with changes to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i),
state agencies are now required to adopt and submit SIP revisions
within three years after new amendments are published in the Federal
Register.) State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51,
and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent
regulations.
    On June 16, 2006, the State of Alabama submitted a SIP revision for
the purpose of revising the State's NSR

permitting provisions. These changes were made primarily to adopt EPA's
2002 NSR Reform Rules. As discussed in further detail below, EPA
believes the revisions contained in the Alabama submittal are
approvable for inclusion into the Alabama SIP.

III. What is EPA's Analysis of Alabama's NSR Rule Revisions?

    Alabama currently has a SIP-approved NSR program for new and
modified stationary sources. EPA is now proposing to approve revisions
to Alabama's existing PSD program in the SIP. These revisions became
State-effective on July 11, 2006, and were submitted to EPA on June 16,
2006, for incorporation into the Alabama SIP. Copies of the revised
rules, as well as the State's Technical Support Document, can be
obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the ``Docket'' section above.
A discussion of the specific changes to the Alabama rules, proposed for
inclusion in the SIP, follows.
    ADEM Rule 335-3-14-.04 contains the preconstruction review program
that provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of
ambient air quality as required under Part C of title I of the CAA. The
program applies to major stationary sources or modifications
constructing in areas that are designated as attainment or
unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS. Alabama's PSD program was
originally approved into the SIP by EPA on November 10, 1981, and has
been revised several times since then. The current revisions to Rule
335-3-14-.04, which EPA is now proposing to approve into the SIP, were
provided to update the existing provisions to be consistent with the
current federal PSD rules, including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. State
agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules, with different but equivalent regulations. In developing
regulations consistent with the 2002 NSR reform rules, ADEM has made
the following changes in its rules that are different but equivalent to
the federal regulations:

    1. Applicability provisions--Actual-to-Potential Test for
Projects that Only Involve Existing Emissions Units (335-3-
14-.04(1)(h))--As part of the 2002 NSR reform rules, EPA changed NSR
applicability determinations to rely on a new definition of
``baseline actual emissions'' that supports the ``actual-to-
projected actual'' methodology. In addition to adopting this new
methodology for determining NSR applicability, ADEM has retained an
optional ``actual to potential'' test for projects that only involve
existing units. This approach utilizes the definition for ``actual
emissions'' to determine past actual emissions. To allow facilities
to continue to use the actual-to-potential test, some of the State
definitions are slightly different from the federal rule. ADEM's
definition of ``Net Emissions Increase'' in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(c)
does not include the condition that ``actual emissions'' not be used
in determining creditable emissions increases and decreases.
Consistent with this approach, the definition of ``actual
emissions'' in ADEM's Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(u) does not include an
exclusion for determining significant increases or decreases.
Because the ``actual to potential test'' approach is optional for
existing units and at least as stringent as the federal rules, this
difference is approvable.
    2. Definition of ``Allowable Emissions'' and ``Enforceable''--
ADEM's definitions in Rule 335-3-14-.04-(2)(p) and (q) contain
provisions indicating that appropriate limitations from 40 CFR part
63 also can be considered in determining enforceable limitations.
These changes do not have a substantive effect on the terms, but
rather, serve to clarify these terms. As a result, the change is at
least as stringent as the federal rules, and is approvable.
    3. Definition of ``Significant''--In the definition of
``significant'' found in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(w), ADEM excluded HF
from being considered a fluoride. This change was prompted by the
language included in the preamble for the NSR Reform regulations (67
FR 80240) which states that HF should not be considered as part of
the fluorides. Therefore, this change is approvable.
    4. Definition of Baseline Actual Emissions--ADEM's definition in
Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(uu)3, uses different trigger dates for new and
existing units when establishing the period for establishing the
baseline actual emissions for the unit. While this is different than
the federal rule, ADEM's approach offers the requisite specificity
and is at least as stringent as the federal rule.
    5. Definition of Regulated NSR Pollutant--ADEM has included
language in Rule 335-3-14-.04(2)(ww)4 to exclude compounds listed
under section 112(r)(3) of the CAA from the definition of regulated
NSR pollutant unless otherwise listed as an NSR pollutant in the
federal NSR rules. Such compounds are excluded from the federal NSR
rules pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 51.166(b)(49)(iv). ADEM's rule is
therefore consistent with federal rules.
    6. Reasonable Possibility Provisions--ADEM made the following
changes to the reasonable possibility provisions in Rule 335-3-
14-.04(17):
    a. ADEM included language in Rule 335-3-14-.04(17)(d) to require
additional recordkeeping requirements for those modifications
``where there is not a reasonable possibility that a project is part
of a major modification and that is not excluded from the definition
of physical change or change in the method of operation.''
    b. ADEM added language in Rule 335-3-14-.04(17)(e) to require
that all sources meet the recordkeeping requirements of the electric
utilities. In Rule 335-3-14-.04(17)(e)(2), ADEM proposed additional
reporting requirements for sources with a project for which there is
a reasonable possibility that the project could exceed the
significance thresholds. As discussed earlier, on March 8, 2007 (72
FR 10445), EPA proposed changes to the reasonable possibility
provisions in the 2002 NSR reform rules, and on December 14, 2007,
EPA issued a final action responding to the D.C. Circuit's remand.
ADEM's changes identified above are more stringent than the federal
rule and are therefore approvable.
    7. PAL Provisions--ADEM made the following changes to the
Actuals PAL provisions in Rule 335-3-14-.04(23):
    a. (23)(a)2--ADEM omitted the provision which allows facilities
utilizing PAL to remove previously set synthetic minor PSD
limitations. According to Alabama's submittal, it is ADEM's intent
that previously set PSD synthetic minor limits remain intact,
similar to how NSPS, SIP and BACT limits remain applicable when
requesting and obtaining a PAL in a permit.
    b. (23)(f)--ADEM changed the method of setting the PAL. The
federal rules state that any unit constructed after the 24-month
period chosen for setting the PAL shall have its allowable emissions
added to the PAL. ADEM has changed the provision to only allow the
inclusion of actual emissions during any 24-month period of
operation for sources which have been in operation for greater than
24 months. According to Alabama's SIP submittal, it is ADEM's intent
that the PAL be based upon true actual emissions. Allowing for the
inclusion of allowable emissions for all sources built after the
chosen 24-month period would not be consistent with this approach.
    c. (23)(i)5--ADEM has added a provision which states that
synthetic minor limits which existed prior to a PAL shall be
retained by the source after the expiration of the PAL. According to
Alabama's SIP submittal, it is ADEM's intention that previously set
PSD synthetic minor limits remain intact, in the same fashion that
NSPS, SIP and BACT limits remain effective.
    d. (23)(n)1--ADEM has removed the requirement to submit a semi-
annual report within 30 days of the end of the reporting period.
Since the facility's title V permit would require these reports to
be submitted, its inclusion in the PSD regulations is not necessary.
    Although the changes to the PAL provisions identified above are
different than the federal rule, ADEM's approach is as stringent as
the federal rules and is approvable. Additional information
regarding these changes, including ADEM's explanation, is available
in the Docket for this proposed action.

    As part of EPA's review of the June 2006 Alabama SIP submittal, EPA
performed a line-by-line review of the proposed revisions, including
the provisions summarized above which differ from the federal rule. EPA
has determined that the rules included in the June 2006 submittal are
consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption
and submittal of implementation plans for NSR set forth at 40 CFR
51.165 and 51.166.

    Alabama's June 2006 SIP submittal did not include any revisions to
its NNSR rules. The State of Alabama currently has two nonattainment
areas for PM2.5 and no nonattainment areas for ozone. At the
time of the submittal by Alabama, EPA had not promulgated NSR
implementations rules for PM2.5. EPA proposed the NSR
implementation rules for PM2.5 on November 1, 2005. Once
final, Alabama will be required to revise its SIP to update its NNSR
rules.

IV. What Action is EPA Taking?

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to approve the
changes made to Alabama's Rule 335-3-14-.04, as submitted by ADEM on
June 16, 2006, as revisions to the Alabama SIP.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve state rules implementing a Federal standard,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulphur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 10, 2008.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
 [FR Doc. E8-1181 Filed 1-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 34321]
[DOCID:fr15jy09-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13481-000]

FFP Project 70, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

July 8, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 70, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Filter Bend Hydrokinetic
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in East Carroll
Parish, Louisiana and Issaquena County, Mississippi.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners'' express permission.
    The proposed Filter Bend Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1)
3,802 proposed 40 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 152.08 megawatts; (2) a 5-mile-long, 69 kilovolt
transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed Filter
Bend Hydrokinetic Project would have an average annual generation of
666 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street,
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13481) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-16727 Filed 7-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 36632]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14445]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency
Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and
solicitation of public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The ICR describes the
nature of the information collection and its expected burden. A Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period was published on June 13,
2012 (Vol. 77, No. 144/FR pp.35473-35475).

DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
or before July 18, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Hinch at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Behavioral Safety Research
(NTI-132), W44-466, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Mary Hinch's phone number is 202-366-
5595 and her email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0665.
    Title: NHTSA Distracted Driving Survey Project.
    Form No.: NHTSA Form 1084.
    Type of Review: Revision of previously approved collection of
information.
    Respondents: Licensed drivers 18 years of age and older residing in
the communities participating in the distracted driving demonstration
program. Participation by all respondents would be voluntary and
anonymous. The surveys would not collect any personal information that
would allow anyone to identify respondents. A Spanish-language
translation and bilingual interviewers would be used to minimize
language barriers to participation.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: A maximum of 20,000 licensed
drivers.
    Estimated Time Per Response: The interviews are estimated to run 5
minutes in length.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 1,667 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: Each respondent will only participate in
the survey once.
    Abstract: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) proposes to conduct awareness surveys to evaluate a traffic
safety program designed to reduce texting and driving. The program will
be conducted at the community level in two States. Information on
attitudes, awareness, knowledge, and self-reported behavior would be
collected.
    The findings from the proposed information collection would build
on existing knowledge and contribute to our safety goal of reducing
distracted driving. In 2010 and 2011, NHTSA conducted a high visibility
enforcement distracted driving program in Hartford, Connecticut and
Syracuse, New York focusing on hand-held phone use. The current project
would expand the distracted driving program to focus on texting
behavior. This data collection would provide great insight into the
application of the high visibility enforcement model to reduce texting
amongst drivers.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments Are Invited On: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department of Transportation, including whether the information
will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is most
effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this
notice.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2013-14445 Filed 6-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P