In addition, airlines expressed that for the same reasons that the Agency should generally align with ICAO standards, it should be consistent with ICAO on whether to apply CAEP/ 4 standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models. If EPA differed from ICAO on this provision, there would be the very inconsistency between domestic and international practice that aligning with ICAO requirements avoids. Furthermore, if EPA adopts such a provision prior to ICAO, such action would potentially place U. S. manufacturers and air carriers at a competitive disadvantage for what EPA acknowledges to be minimal environmental benefit.

In addition, one airline expressed that it presently has the JT8D 219 engine on some of its commercial jets. The proposal indicated that the JT8D 219 would be used in supersonic business jets, which the airline does not operate; however, it ( and maybe other domestic air carriers)

operates this engine in our commercial aircraft fleet. Therefore, the implication of these provisions has not been fully investigated by EPA as mandated by the CAA. ( See the Summary Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 69 and Analysis of Comments for this rulemaking for further discussion of comments.)

In response, as indicated earlier, the implementation date applicable to newly designed and certified engines under CAEP/ 4, December 31, 2003, has already occurred for the CAEP/ 4 standards, and at this late date to promulgate a provision to apply today's standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models ( a production cut off) could be disruptive to the production planning of engine manufacturers. EPA and ICAO ( as we mentioned in the proposal and as one commenter noted in its comments) have historically adopted production cut offs for previous standards, but in today's unique case the lateness of the rule may not provide manufacturers enough lead time for such planning. However, as we discussed earlier in section 1,

we intend to consider more stringent NOx standards in a future rulemaking, and similar to CAEP/ 6' s future plans described above, we also intend to consider applying more stringent standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models for such a future rulemaking.

This provision is an important issue that we expect to fully consider for future standards.

While we solicited comment on extending the CAEP/ 4 standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models, we did not develop a record that fully analyzes the emissions benefits ( if any) and the implementation costs of going beyond CAEP in this manner. Therefore,

the public has not been provided an opportunity to analyze and comment upon these important factors. We believe that our analysis of these factors would need to be weighed through a noticeand comment process in determining whether a production cut off, with a specific lead time period, would be appropriate under CAA section 231 in this case. Particularly regarding the cost of compliance within necessary lead time issue, we are concerned that there is insufficient data Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 70 that specifically addresses the appropriate lead time for subjecting the few remaining inproduction engine models to the CAEP/ 4 standards, and that our selection of a production cut off date could therefore be viewed as arbitrarily chosen.

Since we have not yet provided that opportunity for public comment on our analysis of this issue, and since attempting to do so now would in our view unacceptably slow down this rulemaking, in the interests of expediency and of bringing U. S. domestic law into conformity with our obligations under the Chicago Convention ( albeit tardily), we have decided that the most appropriate course for now, under CAA section 231 ( a), is to simply update our regulations to track CAEP/ 4 in terms of both stringency levels and scope of applicability. Similarly, without having developed the necessary record and analysis, at this time we are unable to respond to the substantive comments offered by commenters regarding the production cutoff issue, and our decision today should in no way be viewed as either endorsing or rejecting the concept of a production cut off. Given the need to quickly promulgate standards that are at least as stringent as CAEP/ 4, we must decline to resolve the numerous issues raised either in favor of or in opposition to applying the CAEP/ 4 standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models.

IV. Amendments to Criteria on Calibration and Test Gases for Gaseous Emissions Test and Measurement Procedures In today's rulemaking, EPA will incorporate by reference ICAO's 1997 amendments to the Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 94Such engines include newly manufactured engines of already certified models.

95Russian Federation, " Corrections to Annex 16, Volume II," Agenda Item 2: Review of reports of working groups relating to engine emissions and the development of recommendations to the Council thereon, Working Paper 19, Presented by A. A. Gorbatko, November 11, 1995 ( distributed November 30, 1995), CAEP/ 3, Montreal, December 5 to 15, 1995. A copy of this paper can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030.

71 criteria on calibration and test gases for the test procedures of gaseous emissions ( ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, Annex 16,

Volume II, " Aircraft Engine Emissions," Second Edition, July 1993; Amendment 3, March 20,

1997, Appendices 3 and 5) in 40 CFR 87.64 . ICAO's amendments, which became effective on March 20, 1997, apply to subsonic ( newly certified and newly manufactured engines94) and supersonic gas turbine engines. The technical changes will correct a few inconsistencies between the specifications for carbon dioxide ( CO 2) analyzers ( Attachment B of Appendices 3 and 5) and the calibration and test gases ( Attachment D of Appendices 3 and 5) of gaseous emissions. The test procedure amendments incorporated by reference will be effective 30 days after the publication of the final rule.

For CAEP/ 3 in 1995, the Russian Federation presented a working paper entitled,

" Corrections to Annex 16, Volume II," that stated the following: 95 According to CAEP/ 2 recommendations, in the list of calibration and test gases ( see the table in Attachment of Appendices 3 and 5) " CO 2 in N 2" was replaced with " CO 2 in air" gas. At the same time the following sub paragraph was newly introduced into Attachment B ( Appendices 3 and 5) : Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 96United Kingdom, " Amendments to Annex 16, Volume II, Attachment D to Appendices 3 and 5 ( Calibration and Test Gases)," Agenda Item 2: Review of reports of working groups relating to engine emissions and the development of recommendations to the Council thereon, Working Paper 20, Presented by M. E. Wright, November 14, 1995 ( distributed November 30, 1995), CAEP/ 3, Montreal, December 5 to 15, 1995. A copy of this paper can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030.

72 ( g) The effect of oxygen ( O 2) on the CO 2 analyzer response shall be checked. For a change from 0 percent O 2 to 21 percent O 2 the response of a given CO 2 concentration shall not change by more than 2 per cent of reading. If this limit cannot be met and appropriate correction factor shall be applied.

Since the best way to carry out this checking procedure is to calibrate the analyzer first with CO 2 in nitrogen and then with CO 2 in air, both " CO 2 in N 2" and " CO 2 in air" gases have to be retained in the list. It seems then that " CO in air," " CO 2 in air," " NO in N 2" and now " CO 2 in N 2" have to be replaced with " CO in zero air,"

" CO 2 in zero air," " CO 2 in zero nitrogen" and " NO in zero nitrogen" just by analogy with the gaseous mixtures of different hydrocarbons diluted by zero air and listed in the same table.

In addition, at CAEP/ 3 the United Kingdom then presented a working paper on this same issue. 96 They indicated that CAEP's Working Group 3 ( Emissions Working Group) had accepted the above proposals of the Russian Federation paper on correcting inconsistencies in the list of calibration and test gases specified in Annex 16, Volume II, Attachment D to Appendices 3 and 5,

and Working Group 3 had recommended that these proposals be presented at CAEP/ 3. The Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 97ICAO/ CAEP, Report of Third Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, December 5 15, 1995, Document 9675, CAEP/ 3.

73 United Kingdom also recommended the adoption of these Russian Federation proposals   to utilize CO 2 in nitrogen gas mixture to check the effect of oxygen on CO 2 analyzers. In addition,

they recommended the specification of all calibration and test gases required for all the gaseous emissions tests required in Annex 16.

At CAEP/ 3, the CAEP members agreed that the above amendments to the calibration and test gases were justified, and thus, these amendments were then adopted. 97 Today, EPA will incorporate by reference the amendments to the criteria on calibration and test gases for the test procedures of gaseous emissions, because the changes improve the test procedures by correcting inconsistencies and distinguishing between calibration and test gases. The amendments will include the following: ( 1) listing all calibration gases separately from test gases for HC, CO 2, CO and NO x analyzers, ( 2) changing " N 2" to " zero nitrogen" in relation to the test gases for the HC and NO x analyzers, ( 3) adding " CO 2 in zero nitrogen" as a test gas for CO 2 analyzer, ( 4) changing " air" to " zero air" in relation to the test gas for CO and CO 2 analyzers, ( 5) revising the accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for the " propane in zero air" test gas of HC analyzer, ( 6) amending the accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for the " CO 2 in zero air" test gas of CO 2 analyzer, ( 7) adding the accuracy "+ 1 percent" for the " CO 2 in zero nitrogen" test gas of CO 2 analyzer, ( 8) changing accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for test gas of CO analyzer, and ( 9) revising accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for test gas of NO x analyzer.

Manufacturers are already voluntarily complying with ICAO's 1997 amendments to the criteria on calibration and test gases for the test procedures of gaseous emissions. Thus, formal Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 98This action was taken in 1984 to provide greater flexibility to manufacturers for scheduling engine production rates during the final years.

74 adoption of these ICAO test procedure amendments will require no new action by manufacturers.

In addition, the existence of ICAO's requirements will ensure that the costs of compliance ( as well as the air quality impact) with these test procedures will be minimal. ( In the 1982 and 1997 final rules on aircraft engine emissions ( 47 FR 58462, December 30, 1982 and 62 FR 25356, May 8,

1997, respectively), EPA incorporated by reference the then existing ICAO testing and measurement procedures for aircraft engine emissions ( ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Volume II, " Aircraft Engine Emissions," First and Second Editions, Appendices 3 and 5 were incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 87.64) in order to eliminate confusion over minor differences in procedures for demonstrating compliance with the U. S. and ICAO standards.)

V. Correction of Exemptions for Very Low Production Models Because of an editorial error, the section in the aircraft engine emission regulations regarding exemptions for very low production models is incorrectly specified ( see section 40 CFR 87.7( b)( 1) and ( 2)). In the October 18, 1984 final rulemaking ( 49 FR 41000), EPA intended to amend the low production engine provisions of the aircraft regulations by revising paragraph ( b)

and deleting paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2) in order to eliminate the maximum annual production limit of 20 engines per year. In the revisions to paragraph ( b), EPA retained the maximum total production limit of 200 units for aircraft models certified after January 1, 1984.98 For § 87.7( b), Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 99Specifically, the FAA of the DOT has the responsibility to enforce the aircraft emission standards established by EPA.

75 Today, EPA will correct this editorial error by eliminating paragraph ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2).

As discussed further in the 1984 final rulemaking, this action will provide more flexibility for engine manufacturers in scheduling during the last few engine production years. Also, the air quality impact of eliminating the annual production limit will be very small.

VI. Coordination with FAA The requirements contained in this action are being promulgated after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation in order to assure appropriate consideration of aircraft safety.

Under section 232 of the CAA, the Department of Transportation ( DOT) has the responsibility to enforce the aircraft emission standards established by EPA under section 231.99 In addition,

section 231( b) of the CAA states that "[ a] ny regulation prescribed under this section... shall take effect ( after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation) to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance...." Also, section 231( a)( 2)( B) indicates that EPA " shall not change the aircraft engine emission standards if such change would significantly increase noise...." As in past rulemakings and pursuant to the above referenced sections of the CAA, EPA has coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA) of the DOT with respect to today's action.

Moreover, FAA is the official U. S. delegate to ICAO. FAA agreed to the 1997 and 1999 amendments at ICAO's Third and Fourth Meetings of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 100The Third Meeting of CAEP ( CAEP/ 3) occurred in Montreal, Quebec from December 5 through 15 in 1995. CAEP/ 4 took place in Montreal from April 6 through 8, 1998.

76 Protection ( CAEP/ 3 and CAEP/ 4) after advisement from EPA. 100 FAA and EPA were both members of the CAEP's Working Group 3 ( among others), whose objective was to evaluate emissions technical issues and develop recommendations on such issues for CAEP/ 3 and CAEP/ 4.

After assessing emissions test procedure amendments and new NO x standards, Working Group 3 made recommendations to CAEP on these elements. These recommendations were then considered at the CAEP/ 3 and CAEP/ 4 meetings, respectively, prior to their adoption by ICAO in 1997 and 1999.

In addition, as discussed above, FAA will have the responsibility to enforce today's requirements. As a part of its compliance responsibilities, FAA conducts the emission tests or delegates that responsibility to the engine manufacturer, which is then monitored by the FAA.

Since the FAA does not have the resources or the funding to test engines, FAA selects engineers at each plant to serve as representatives ( called designated engineering representatives ( DERs))

for the FAA while the manufacturer performs the test procedures. DERs' responsibilities include evaluating the test plan, the test engine, the test equipment, and the final testing report sent to FAA. DERs' responsibilities are determined by the FAA and today's rulemaking will not affect their duties.

VII. Possible Future Aviation Emission Reductions ( EPA/ FAA Voluntary Aviation Emissions Reduction Initiative) Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 101FAA and EPA, " Agreement Between Federal Aviation Administration and Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Environmental Matters Relation to Aviation," signed on March 24, 1998 by FAA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, and International Aviation, Louise Maillet, and EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Richard Wilson. A copy of this document can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030.

102Two engine models were indeed certificated with emissions retrofit kits, and a number of these engines have been purchased for aircraft with the retrofit kits installed in their stock configuration. However, retrofit kits have not to date provided widescale emissions improvements because it seems they may have limited applicability to certain engine types, small 77 As discussed in the proposal, there is growing interest, particularly at the state and local level, in addressing emissions from aircraft and other aviation related sources. Such interest is often related to plans for airport expansion which is occurring across the country. It is possible that other approaches may provide effective avenues to achieve additional aviation emission reductions, beyond EPA establishing aircraft engine emission standards.

Concerns by state and local air agencies and environmental and public health organizations about aviation emissions, led to EPA and FAA signing a memorandum of understanding ( MOU)

in March 1998 agreeing to work to identify efforts that could reduce aviation emissions. 101 FAA and EPA participated in a national stakeholder initiative led by states and industry whose goal was to develop a voluntary program to reduce pollutants from aircraft and other aviation sources that contribute to local and regional air pollution in the United States. The major stakeholders that participated in this initiative included representatives of the aviation industry ( passenger and cargo airlines and engine manufacturers), airports, state and local air pollution control officials,

environmental organizations, and NASA.

Initially, the discussions with stakeholders focused on the prospect of aircraft engine emission reduction retrofit kits, which might be applied to certain existing aircraft engines. 102 Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 emission benefits, and cost issues.

103The stakeholders considered the impact, operation and design of GSE at airports, and whether to undertake projects at several airports to reduce overall emissions.

104Operational strategies, such as reducing the time in which aircraft are in idle and taxi modes and the impact of auxiliary power units ( APUs) were also considered.

78 However, as the initiative evolved, the focus was expanded by the stakeholders to identify strategies for various types of ground service equipment ( GSE) in use at airports, 103 in addition to strategies to reduce aircraft emissions. 104 Unfortunately, the state and industry stakeholders did not reach consensus on a national aviation emissions reduction program. The Agencies are currently contemplating next steps following from the national stakeholder initiative and discussions of potential voluntary programs.

In addition, in the proposal EPA invited comment on the national stakeholder initiative and any other approaches for aviation emission reductions, and we received many suggestions from commenters. We may consider these suggested approaches during our current reflection on the stakeholder initiative and for future voluntary programs. See the Summary and Analysis of Comments for further discussion of approaches to additional aviation emission reductions.

VIII. Regulatory Impacts Aircraft engines are international commodities, and thus, they are designed to meet international standards. Today's action will have the benefit of establishing consistency between U. S. and international emission standards and test procedures. Thus, an emission certification test Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 105CAEP's Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support Group ( FESG) concluded at CAEP/ 4 that their assessment of these new NO x standards indicates that the direct costs of the standards would be minimal, and the benefits would be modest. ( ICAO, CAEP/ 4, Working Paper 4, " Economic Assessment of the EPG NO x Stringency Proposal," March 12, 1998, Presented by the Chairman of FESG, Agenda Item 1: Review of proposals relating to NO x emissions, including the amendment of Annex 16, Volume II.. A copy of this paper can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030.

79 which meets U. S. requirements will also be applicable to all ICAO requirements. Engine manufacturers are already developing improved technology in response to the ICAO standards that match standards promulgated here, and EPA does not believe that the costs incurred by the aircraft industry as a result of the existing ICAO standards should be attributed to today's regulations. Also, the test procedure amendments ( revisions to criteria on calibration and test gases) necessary to determine compliance are already being adhered to by manufacturers during current engine certification tests. Therefore, EPA believes that today's regulations will impose no additional burden on manufacturers.

The existence of ICAO's requirements results in minimal cost as well as air quality benefits from today's requirements. 105 Since aircraft and aircraft engines are international commodities,

there is commercial benefit to consistency between U. S. and international emission standards and control program requirements. Also, the adoption of the ICAO standards and related test procedures is consistent with our treaty obligations.

IX. Public Participation A number of interested parties participated in the rulemaking process that culminates with Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 80 this final rule. This process provided opportunity for submitting written public comments following the proposal that we published on September 30, 2003 ( 68 FR 56226). We considered these comments in developing the final rule. In addition, we held a public hearing on the proposed rulemaking on November 13, 2003, and we have considered comments presented at the hearing.

We have prepared a detailed Summary and Analysis of Comments document, which describes comments we received on the proposal and our response to each of these comments.

The Summary and Analysis of Comments is available in the e docket for this rule, as well as on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality homepage ( www. epa. gov/ otaq/ aviation. htm). In addition, comments and responses for key issues are included throughout this preamble.

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority The statutory authority for today's proposal is provided by sections 231 and 301( a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 7571 and 7601( a). See section II of today's rule for discussion of how EPA meets the CAA's statutory requirements.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 81 Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines " significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a " significant regulatory action" within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 82 Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. Any reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with these standards would be defined by the Secretary of Transportation in enforcement regulations issued later under the provisions of section 232 of the Clean Air Act.

Since most if not all manufacturers already measure NO x and report the results to the FAA, any additional reporting and record keeping requirements associated with FAA enforcement of today's regulations would likely be very small.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 83 connection with this final rule. The EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) a small business that meet the definition for business based on SBA size standards;

( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The following Table XI C 1 provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected by this regulation.

Table XI. C 1   Primary SBA Small Business Categories Potentially Affected by This Regulation Industry NAICSa Codes Defined by SBA as a small business if: b Manufacturers of new aircraft engines 336412 < 1,000 employees Manufacturers of new aircraft 336411 < 1,500 employees Scheduled air carriers, passenger and freight 481 < 1,500 employees a North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS)

b According to SBA's regulations ( 13 CFR part 121), businesses with no more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are considered " small entities" for purposes of a regulatory flexibility analysis.

After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, EPA has Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 84 concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Because of the limited classes of aircraft engines to which today's regulations apply, no small entities will be affected. Our review of the list of manufacturers of commercial aircraft gas turbine engines with rated thrust greater than 26.7 kN indicates that there are no U. S. manufacturers of these engines that qualify as small businesses. We are unaware of any foreign manufacturers with a U. S. based facility that will qualify as a small business. In addition, the rule will not impose significant economic impacts on engine manufacturers. As discussed earlier, today's action will codify emission standards that manufacturers currently adhere to ( nearly all in production engines already meet the standards). These standards are equivalent to the ICAO international consensus standards. Today's emission standards will not impose any additional burden on manufacturers because they are already designing engines to meet the ICAO standards. Also, the test procedure amendments ( revisions to criteria on calibration and test gases) necessary to determine compliance are already being adhered to by manufacturers during current engine certification tests.

Therefore, EPA believes that today's regulations will impose no additional burden on manufacturers. The existence of ICAO's requirements results in minimal cost from these requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104 4, Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 85 establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure of $ 100 million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate or Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 86 the private sector in any one year. This rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Today's action will codify emission standards that manufacturers currently adhere to ( nearly all in production engines already meet the standards). These standards are equivalent to the ICAO international consensus standards.

Today's emission standards will not impose any additional burden on manufacturers because they are already designing new engines to meet the ICAO standards. Thus, the annual effect on the economy of today's standards will be minimal. Today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." " Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government."

Today's rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 87 in Executive Order 13132. As discussed earlier, section 233 of the CAA preempts states from adopting or enforcing aircraft engine emission standards that are not identical to our standards.

This rule merely modifies existing EPA aircraft engine emission standards and test procedures and therefore will merely continue an existing preemption of State and local law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled " Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications."

This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The promulgated emission standards and other related requirements for private industry in this rule have national applicability and therefore do not uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal Governments. As discussed earlier, section 233 of the CAA preempts states from adopting or enforcing aircraft engine emission standards that are not identical to our standards. This final rule merely modifies existing EPA aircraft engine emission standards and test procedures and therefore Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 88 will merely continue an existing preemption of State and local law. In addition, today's rule will be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance obligations only on engine manufacturers. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health & Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that ( 1) is determined to be " economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, Section 5 501 of the Order directs the Agency to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,

and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. EPA believes that the NO x emission reductions ( NO x is a precursor to the formation of ozone and PM) from this rulemaking will further improve air quality and will further improve children's health.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 89 This rule is not a " significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211,

" Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use"

( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. As discussed earlier, today's action will codify emission standards that manufacturers currently adhere to ( nearly all in production engines already meet the standards). These standards are equivalent to the ICAO international consensus standards.

The final standards will have no likely adverse energy effects because manufacturers are already designing engines to meet the ICAO standards. Also, the test procedure amendments ( revisions to criteria on calibration and test gases) necessary to determine compliance are already being adhered to by manufacturers during current engine certification tests. Thus, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (" NTTAA"), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 106ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Volume II, " Aircraft Engine Emissions," Second Edition, July 1993  Amendment 3, March 20, 1997. Copies of this document can be obtained from ICAO ( www. icao. int).

90 use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This final rulemaking involves technical standards for testing emissions for commercial aircraft gas turbine engines. EPA will use test procedures contained in ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, with the modifications contained in this rulemaking. 106 These procedures are currently used by all manufacturers of commercial aircraft gas turbine engines ( with thrust greater than 26.7 kN) to demonstrate compliance with ICAO emissions standards.

J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C.

804( 2). This rule will be effective [ Insert date 30 days after date of publication in the Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 91 FEDERAL REGISTER].

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 87 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Aircraft, Incorporation by reference.

Dated: _______ XX, 200X Michael O. Leavitt,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 87  CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM AIRCRAFT AND AIRCRAFT ENGINES 1. The authority citation for part 87 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 231, 301( a), Clean Air Act, as amended ( 42 U. S. C 7571, 7601( a)).

Subpart A   [ Amended] Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 92 2. Section 87.7 is amended by removing paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2).

3. A new section 87.8 is added to read as follows:

§ 87.8 Incorporation by reference.

We have incorporated by reference the documents listed in this section. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference as prescribed in 5 U. S. C. 552( a) and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U. S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building,

Washington, DC 20460 or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol St., NW., 7th Floor,

Suite 700, Washington, DC.

( a) ICAO material. Table 1 of § 87.8 lists material from the International Civil Aviation Organization that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the sections of this part where we reference it. Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the International Civil Aviation Organization,

Document Sales Unit, 999 University Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7. Table 1 follows: Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 93 Table 1 of § 87.8   ICAO Materials Document number and name Part 1039 reference International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 16, Environmental Protection, Volume II, Aircraft Engine Emissions, Second Edition, July 1993, Including Amendment 3 of March 20, 1997. 87.8, 87.64, 87.71, 87.82,

87.89 ( b) [ Reserved]

Subpart C   [ Amended]

4. Section 87.21 is amended by adding paragraph ( d)( 1)( vi) and ( d)( 1)( vii) to read as follows:

§ 87.21 Standards for exhaust emissions.

* * * * *

( d) * * *

( 1) * * *

( vi) Engines of a type or model of which the date of manufacture of the first individual Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 94 production model was after December 31, 2003:

( A) Engines with a rated pressure ratio of 30 or less:

( 1) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 19 + 1.6( rPR)) grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( 2) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 26.7 kilonewtons but not greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 37.572 + 1.6( rPR)  0.2087( rO)) grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( B) Engines with a rated pressure ratio greater than 30 but less than 62.5:

( 1) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 7 + 2( rPR)) grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( 2) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 26.7 kilonewtons but not greater than 89 kilonewtons: Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 95 Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 42.71 + 1.4286( rPR)  0.4013( rO) + 0.00642( rPR × rO))

grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( A) Engines with a rated pressure ratio of 62.5 or more:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 32 + 1.6( rPR)) grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( vii) The emission standards prescribed in paragraph ( d)( 1)( vi) of this section shall apply as prescribed beginning [ Insert date 30 days after date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

* * * * *

Subpart G   [ Amended]

5. Section 87.64 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.64 Sampling and analytical procedures for measuring gaseous exhaust emissions.

The system and procedures for sampling and measurement of gaseous emissions shall be Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 96 as specified by Appendices 3 and 5 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8).

6. Section 87.71 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.71 Compliance with gaseous emission standards.

Compliance with each gaseous emission standard by an aircraft engine shall be determined by comparing the pollutant level in grams/ kilonewton/ thrust/ cycle or grams/ kilowatt/ cycle as calculated in § 87.64 with the applicable emission standard under this part. An acceptable alternative to testing every engine is described in Appendix 6 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8). Other methods of demonstrating compliance may be approved by the Secretary with the concurrence of the Administrator.

7. Section 87.82 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.82 Sampling and analytical procedures for measuring smoke exhaust emissions.

The system and procedures for sampling and measurement of smoke emissions shall be as specified by Appendix 2 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8).

8. Section 87.89 is revised to read as follows: Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 97 § 87.89 Compliance with smoke emission standards.

Compliance with each smoke emission standard shall be determined by comparing the plot of SN as a function of power setting with the applicable emission standard under this part. The SN at every power setting must be such that there is a high degree of confidence that the standard will not be exceeded by any engine of the model being tested. An acceptable alternative to testing every engine is described in Appendix 6 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8).


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47621-47622]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19506]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-448-000]

Appalachian Gateway Project; Notice of Availability of Draft
General Conformity Analysis

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
the Clean Air Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission or FERC's) regulations, Commission staff has prepared this
draft General Conformity Determination (GCD) for the Appalachian
Gateway Project (Project) to assess the potential air quality impacts
associated with the construction and operation of natural gas
pipelines, compressor stations, and aboveground facilities currently
being constructed by Dominion Transmission, Inc (Dominion) under Docket
Number CP10-448-000 in Pennsylvania.
    The FERC staff concludes that the Project will achieve conformity
in Pennsylvania with the use of Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection emission credits. If significant new comments
are received by the end of the 30-day public comment period, which ends
on September 2, 2012, FERC staff will issue a final GCD to address any
changes necessary and respond to comments. If no new significant
comments are received, FERC staff will issue a public notice
identifying this GCD as final.
    The revised draft GCD addresses the potential air quality impacts
on Pennsylvania air quality from the construction and operation of the
Project. The Project consists of the following natural gas pipeline
facilities in West Virginia and Pennsylvania: construction of 109.1
miles of 20-inch, 24-inch, and 30-inch-diameter interstate natural gas
transmission pipeline, four new compressor stations, and modifications
to two existing compressor stations.
    Any person wishing to comment on the draft GCD may do so. To ensure
that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to
issuance of the final GCD, it is important that we receive your
comments in Washington, DC on or before September 2, 2012.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances please reference the
project docket number (CP10-448-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick
Comment feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick
Comment is an easy method for interested persons to submit text-only
comments on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. eFiling involves
preparing your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on
paper, and then saving the file on your computer's hard drive. You will
attach that file as your submission. New eFiling users must first
create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.'' You will
be asked to select

the type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC. The
administrative public record for this proceeding to date is on the FERC
Web site http://www.ferc.gov. Go to Documents Filings and choose the
eLibrary link. Under eLibrary, click on ``General Search,'' and enter
the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field (e.g., CP010-448). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    For further information, contact Eric Tomasi by telephone at 202-
502-8097 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 2, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19506 Filed 8-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66775-66776]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24034]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2019-0028]

Notice of Request for Clearance of a Revision of a Currently
Approved Information Collection: National Census of Ferry Operators

AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the BTS to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval for new
iterations of an on-going biennial information collection related to
the nation's ferry operations. The information collected from each
Census will be used to produce a descriptive database of existing ferry
operations. A summary report of census findings will also be published
by BTS on the BTS web page: www.bts.gov/ncfo.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 5, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clara Reschovsky,<PHONE_NUMBER>, NCFO
Program Manager, BTS, OST-R, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE, Room E36-324, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: National Census of Ferry Operators (NCFO).
    Type of Request: Approval modifications to an existing information
collection.
    Affected Public: There are approximately 250 ferry operators
nationwide.
    Abstract: In 1998, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) (Pub. L. 105-178), section 1207(c), directed the
Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study of ferry transportation
in the United States and its possessions. In 2000, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) Office of Intermodal and Statewide Planning
conducted a survey of approximately 250 ferry operators to identify:
(1) existing ferry operations including the location and routes served;
(2) source and amount, if any, of funds derived from Federal, State, or
local governments supporting ferry construction or operations; (3)
potential domestic ferry routes in the United States and its
possessions; and (4)

potential for use of high speed ferry services and alternative-fueled
ferry services. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible Efficient
Transportation Equity Act--A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Public Law
109-59, section 1801(e)) required that the Secretary, acting through
the BTS, shall establish and maintain a national ferry database
containing current information regarding routes, vessels, passengers
and vehicles carried, funding sources and such other information as the
Secretary considers useful. In 2012, MAP-21 legislation [Moving Ahead
for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141),] continued the
BTS mandate to conduct the NCFO and also required that the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) use the NCFO data to set the specific
formula for allocating federal ferry funds. The funding allocations
were based on a percentage of the number of passenger boardings,
vehicle boardings, and route miles served. In 2015, the FAST Act
legislation [Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (Pub. L. 114-
94, sec. 1112)] continues the BTS mandate to conduct the NCFO on a
biennial basis, and extended the requirement that the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) use the NCFO data to set the specific formula for
allocating federal ferry funds as required in MAP-21.
    BTS conducted the first National Census of Ferry Operators in 2006.
The Census was conducted again in 2008, 2010, 2014, 2016, 2018, and
2020. Preparations are already underway for the next census in 2023.
The 2022 NCFO was delayed by one year since ferry operations were
disrupted by the pandemic and the census data should collect typical
data. The overall length of the revised questionnaire for the 2022 NCFO
will remain consistent with that of previous years. These information
collections were originally approved by OMB under Control Number 2139-
0009. The overall length of the questionnaire for the 2022 NCFO will
remain consistent with that of previous years.
    The census will be administered to the entire population of ferry
operators (estimate 250 or less). The census will request the
respondents to provide information such as: the points served; the type
of ownership; the number of passengers and vehicles carried in the past
12 months; vessel descriptions (including type of fuel), federal, state
and local funding sources, and intermodal connectivity. All data
collected in 2020 will be added to the existing NCFO database.
    Data Confidentiality Provisions: The National Census of Ferry
Operators may collect confidential business information. The
confidentiality of these data will be protected under 49 CFR 7.29. In
accordance with this regulation, only statistical and non-sensitive
business information will be made available through publications and
public use data files. The statistical public use data are intended to
provide an aggregated source of information on ferry boat operations
nationwide. Business sensitive information may be shared with FHWA to
support FAST Act funding allocations.
    Frequency: This census will be updated every other year.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: The burden per respondent is
estimated to be an average of 30 minutes. This average is based on an
estimate of 20 minutes to answer questions that require answers
specific to that year and an additional 10 minutes to review (and
revise as needed) previously submitted data that will be pre-populated
for each ferry operation.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The total annual burden (in the year
that the census is conducted) is estimated to be 125 hours (that is 30
minutes per respondent for 250 respondents equals 7,500 minutes).
    Response to Comments: A 60-day notice requesting public comment was
issued in the Federal Register on September 1, 2022. No comments were
received.
    Public Comments Invited: Interested parties are invited to send
comments regarding any aspect of this information collection,
including, but not limited to: (1) the necessity and utility of the
information collection for the proper performance of the functions of
the DOT; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility, clarity and content of the collected information;
and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the
quality of the collected information. Send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725-17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: BTS Desk Officer.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 1st day of November, 2022.
Cha-Chi Fan,
Director, Office of Data Development and Standards, Bureau of
Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-24034 Filed 11-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: May 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 28481-28482]
[DOCID:fr21my07-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12767-001]

Rainier Engineering and Environmental, LLC; Notice Rejecting
Filing

May 11, 2007.
    On March 20, 2007, Commission staff rejected the application, filed
November 13, 2006, by Rainier Engineering and Environmental, LLC
(Rainer) for a preliminary permit under section 4(f) of the Federal
Power Act \1\ to study the proposed Tapps Lake Dam Hydroelectric
Project No. 12767, to be located at Puget Sound Energy, Inc.'s Lake
Tapps Dam on the White River in Sumner, Pierce County, Washington. The
application was rejected for failure to include a readable map showing
a project boundary enclosing all proposed project facilities.\2\ On
April 19, 2007, Rainier requested rehearing of the Commission's
decision to reject their application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 797(f) (2000).
    \2\ See 18 CFR 4.81(d) (2006). By letter issued January 18,
2007, Commission staff notified Rainer of the deficiency in its
application and gave Rainer 45 days to file an appropriate map to
cure the deficiency. Rainier timely filed additional maps on
February 28, 2007. However, Commission staff's March 20, 2007 letter
found that the newly-submitted maps also failed to meet the
requirements of section 4.81(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rainer does not attribute any errors to staff's rejection of its
application, but instead proffers assertedly appropriate maps to cure
its application's deficiency and requests reconsideration of its
application in light of its new submission.
    Section 313(a) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825l, requires
an aggrieved party to file its request for rehearing within 30 days
after the issuance of the Commission order and to set forth
specifically the ground or grounds upon which such request is based.
Rainier's rehearing request raises no specific allegations of error
with respect to the staff's order. Therefore, it must be rejected.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In addition, the pleading as filed is deficient because it
failed to include a Statement of Issues, as required by Revision of
Rules of Practice and Procedure Regarding Issue Identification,
Order No. 663, 70 FR 55,723 (September 23, 2005), FERC Statutes and
Regulations ] 31,193 (2005) as amended by Order 663-A, effective
March 23, 2006, to limit its applicability to rehearing requests.
Revision of Rules of Practice and Procedure Regarding Issue
Identification, Order No. 663-A, 71 FR 14,640 (March 23, 2006), FERC
Statutes and Regulations ] 31,211 (2006) (codified at 18 CFR
385.203(a)(7) and 385.713(c)(2) (2006)).

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

    In any event, the submission of additional factual evidence in a
request for rehearing is contrary to Commission policy,\4\ so Rainier's
newly-submitted maps would not have been accepted to reverse staff's
rejection of the application.\5\
    It appears moreover that Rainier late filed \6\ its permit
application \7\ in competition with the preliminary permit application
filed by Don L. Hansen in Project No. 12685.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Northeast Hydrodevelopment Corporation, 42 FERC ]
61,066 n. 6 (1988) (the Commission does not consider information an
applicant submits on rehearing of staff's dismissal of the
application, since the issue before the Commission is whether the
staff's dismissal was appropriate). See also, e.g., Koch Gateway
Pipeline Company, 75 FERC ] 61,132 at 61,456 (1996) (explaining
general policy against receipt of additional information on
rehearing).
    \5\ Furthermore, the new maps did not cure the deficiencies in
Rainier's permit application in that they do not include a project
boundary that encloses all project features, including the
reservoir, and they do not delineate all project features, including
the project's dam, intake structure, and transmission line, as
section 4.81(d) of the Commission's regulations requires.
    \6\ The August 10, 2006 notice of Mr. Hanson's application
required the filing of competing permit applications by 30 days
following October 10, 2006, i.e., by Thursday, November 9, 2006.
Rainier filed its competing application after business hours on
November 9, 2006. Under 18 CFR 385.2001(c)(2) (2006), any document
received after regular business hours is considered filed on the
next business day. Since Friday, November 10, 2006, was a holiday,
the next business day was Monday, November 13, 2006.
    \7\ Finally, Rainier filed its application electronically, which
is prohibited by 18 CFR 385.2003(c)(1)(i) (2006), since preliminary
permit applications are not included among the documents that are
qualified for electronic filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice constitutes final agency action. Request for rehearing
this rejection notice must be filed within 30 days of the date of
issuance of this notice, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.713 (2006).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9682 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P