[Federal Register: October 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 57362]
[DOCID:fr09oc07-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[FIle No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Certain Companies Quoted on the Pink Sheets:
Alliance Transcription Services, Inc., Prime Petroleum Group, Inc.,
T.W. Christian, Inc.; Order of Suspension of Trading

October 4, 2007.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
the issuers listed below. As set forth below for each issuer, questions
have arisen regarding the adequacy and accuracy of publicly-
disseminated information concerning, among other things: (1) The
companies' assets, (2) the companies' business operations and/or
management, (3) the companies' current financial condition, and/or (4)
financing arrangements involving the issuance of the companies' shares.
    1. Alliance Transcription Services, Inc. is a Nevada company with
offices in Maine and California. Questions have arisen regarding the
adequacy and accuracy of press releases concerning the company's assets
and its current operations and financial condition and transactions
involving the issuance of the company's shares.
    2. Prime Petroleum Group, Inc. is a Nevada company with offices in
Washington. Questions have arisen regarding the adequacy and accuracy
of press releases and other publicly-disseminated information
concerning the company's assets and its current operations, management
and financial condition.
    3. T.W. Christian, Inc. is a Minnesota company with offices in
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Questions have arisen regarding
the adequacy and accuracy of press releases concerning the company's
assets and its current operations, management and financial condition.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the companies listed above.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
companies listed above is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT,
October 4, 2007, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on October 17, 2007.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-4971 Filed 10-4-07; 10:28 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28772-28782]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11846]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076; FRL-9671-3]
RIN 2060-AQ97

Air Quality: Widespread Use for Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
and Stage II Waiver

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA has determined that onboard refueling vapor recovery
(ORVR) technology is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle
fleet for purposes of controlling motor vehicle refueling emissions,
and, therefore, by this action, the EPA is waiving the requirement for
states to implement Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems at
gasoline dispensing facilities in nonattainment areas classified as
Serious and above for the ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). This finding will be effective as noted below in the DATES
section. After the effective date of this notice, a state previously
required to implement a Stage II program may take appropriate action to
remove the program from its State Implementation Plan (SIP). Phasing
out the use of Stage II systems may lead to long-term cost savings for
gas station owners and operators while air quality protections are
maintained.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this rule, identified
by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076. All documents in the docket are
listed in www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business
information 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center, EPA Headquarters Library, Room
Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lynn Dail, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, Mail code C539-01,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
919-541-0824; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose of Regulatory Action

    Since 1990, Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems have been a
required emissions control measure in Serious, Severe, and Extreme
ozone nonattainment areas. Beginning with model year 1998, ORVR
equipment has been phased in for new vehicles, and has been a required
control on nearly all new highway vehicles since 2006. Over time, non-
ORVR vehicles will continue to be replaced with ORVR vehicles. Stage II
and ORVR emission control systems are redundant, and the EPA has
determined that emission reductions from ORVR are essentially equal to
and will soon surpass the emission reductions achieved by Stage II
alone. In this action, the EPA is eliminating the largely redundant
Stage II requirement in order to ensure that refueling vapor control
regulations are beneficial without being unnecessarily burdensome to
American business. This action allows, but does not require, states to
discontinue Stage II vapor recovery programs.

II. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Final Rule

    Clean Air Act (CAA) section 202(a)(6) provides discretionary
authority to the EPA Administrator to, by rule, revise or waive the
section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement for Serious, Severe and Extreme
ozone nonattainment areas after the Administrator determines that ORVR
is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. Based on
criteria that the EPA proposed last year (76 FR 41731, July 15, 2011),
the EPA is determining that ORVR is in widespread use. As of the
effective date of today's action, states that are implementing
mandatory Stage II programs under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA may
submit revisions to their SIPs to remove this program.
    The EPA will also be issuing non-binding guidance on developing and
submitting approvable SIP revisions.\1\ This guidance will address SIP
requirements for states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR), which are
separately required under section 184(b)(2) of the CAA to adopt and
implement control measures capable of achieving emissions reductions
comparable to those achievable by Stage II. The EPA is updating its
guidance for estimating what Stage II comparable emissions reductions
could be, in light of the ORVR widespread use determination. The EPA
now expects Stage II comparable emissions reductions to be
substantially less than what was estimated in the past before ORVR use
became widespread. Therefore, the EPA encourages states to consult the
updated guidance before submitting a SIP revision removing Stage II
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor Recovery
Programs: Guidance on Satisfying Requirements of Clean Air Act
Sections 110([ell]), 193, and 184(b)(2) (tentative title).'' U.S.
EPA Office of Air and Radiation, forthcoming. This guidance will
provide the EPA's recommendations for states to consider when
developing SIP revisions following today's rulemaking. Unlike the
final rule, the guidance is not final agency action, and is not
binding on or enforceable against any person. Consequently, it is
subject to possible revision without additional rulemaking. In
addition, the approaches suggested in the guidance (or in any
changes thereto) will not represent final agency action unless and
until the EPA takes a final SIP approval or disapproval action
implementing those approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Costs and Benefits

    The primary purpose of this final rule is to promulgate a
determination that ORVR is in widespread use as permitted in section
202(a)(6) of the CAA. In this final rule, EPA is exercising the
authority provided by section 202(a)(6) of the CAA to, by rule, revise
or waive the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement for Serious,
Severe, and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas after the Administrator
determines that ORVR is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle
fleet. This in turn gives states that were required to implement Stage
II vapor recovery under section 182(b)(3) of the CAA the option to
submit for the EPA's review and approval revised ozone SIPs that will
remove this requirement. The EPA projects that during 2013-2015,
gasoline-dispensing facilities (GDFs) in up to 19 states and the
District of Columbia could seek to decommission and remove Stage II
systems from their dispensers. There are about 30,600 GDFs with Stage
II in these 20 areas. If the states submit and EPA approves SIP
revisions to remove Stage II systems from these GDFs, the EPA projects
savings of about $10.2 million in the first year, $40.5 million in the
second year, and $70.9 million in the third year. Long-term savings are
projected to be about $91 million per year, compared to the current use
of Stage II systems in these areas. No significant emission

increases or decreases are expected from this action.

IV. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities directly affected by this action include states (typically
state air pollution control agencies) and, in some cases, local
governments that develop air pollution control rules that apply to
areas classified as Serious and above for nonattainment of the ozone
NAAQS. Individuals and companies that operate gasoline dispensing
facilities may be indirectly affected by virtue of state action in SIPs
that implement provisions resulting from final rulemaking on this
action; many of these sources are in the following groups:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  SIC
                Industry group                    \a\       NAICS \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline stations.............................    5541    447110, 447190
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Industry Classification System.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this notice will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#impl under ``recent actions.''

C. How is this notice organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows.

I. Purpose of Regulatory Action
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Final Rule
III. Costs and Benefits
IV. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. How is this notice organized?
V. Background
    A. What requirements for Stage II gasoline vapor recovery apply
for ozone nonattainment areas?
    B. Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems
    C. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Systems
    D. Compatibility Between Some Vapor Recovery Systems
    E. Proposed Rule to Determine Widespread Use of ORVR
VI. This Action
    A. Analytical Rationale for Final Rule
    B. Updated Analysis of Widespread Use
    C. Widespread Use Date
    D. Implementation of the Rule Provisions
    E. Implementation of Rule Revisions in the Ozone Transport
Region
    F. Comments on Other Waiver Implementation Issues
VII. Estimated Cost
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act
IX. Statutory Authority

V. Background

A. What requirements for Stage II gasoline vapor recovery apply in
ozone nonattainment areas?

    The requirements in the 1990 CAA Amendments regarding Stage II
vapor recovery are contained in Title I: Provisions for Attainment and
Maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Under CAA
section 182(b)(3), Stage II gasoline vapor recovery systems are
required to be used at higher throughput GDFs located in Serious,
Severe, and Extreme nonattainment areas for ozone.\2\ States were
required to adopt a Stage II program into their SIPs, and the controls
were to be installed according to specified deadlines following state
rule adoption.\3\ Since the early 1990s, Stage 2 gasoline vapor
controls have provided substantial emissions reductions and have
contributed to improved air quality over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Originally, the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement also
applied in all Moderate ozone nonattainment areas. However, under
section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7521(a)(6), the requirements
of section 182(b)(3) no longer apply in Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas after the EPA promulgated ORVR standards on April 6, 1994, 59
FR 16262, codified at 40 CFR parts 86 (including 86.098-8), 88 and
600. Under implementation rules issued in 2002 for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, the EPA retained the Stage II-related requirements
under section 182(b)(3) as they applied for the now-revoked 1-hour
ozone standard. 40 CFR 51.900(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.916(a).
    \3\ This requirement only applies to facilities that sell more
than a specified number of gallons per month and is set forth in
sections 182(b)(3)(A)-(C) and 324(a)-(c). Section 182(b)(3)(B) has
the following effective date requirements for implementation of
Stage II after the adoption date by a state of a Stage II rule: 6
months after adoption of the state rule, for GDFs built after the
enactment date (which for newly designated areas would be the
designation date); 1 year after adoption date, for gas stations
pumping at least 100,000 gal/month based on average monthly sales
over 2-year period before adoption date; 2 years after adoption, for
all others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems

    When a gasoline-powered automobile or other vehicle is brought into
a GDF to be refueled, the empty portion of the fuel tank on the vehicle
contains gasoline vapors. When liquid gasoline is pumped into the
partially empty gas tank, gasoline vapors are forced out of the tank
and fill pipe as the tank fills with liquid gasoline. Where air
pollution control technology is not used, these vapors are emitted into
the ambient air. In the atmosphere, these vapors can react with
sunlight, nitrogen oxides and other volatile organic compounds to form
ozone.
    There are two basic technical approaches to Stage II vapor
recovery: A ``balance'' system, and a vacuum assist system. A balance
type Stage II control system has a rubber boot around the gasoline
nozzle spout that fits snugly up to a vehicle's gasoline fill pipe
during refueling of the vehicle. With a balance system, when gasoline
in the underground storage tank (UST) is pumped into a vehicle, a
positive pressure differential is created between the vehicle tank and
the UST. This pressure differential draws the gasoline vapors from the
vehicle fill pipe through the rubber boot and the concentric hoses and
underground piping into the UST. This is known as a balance system
because gasoline vapors from the vehicle tank flow into the UST tank to
balance pressures. About 30 percent of Stage II GDFs nationwide use the
balance type Stage II system.
    The vacuum assist system is the other primary type of Stage II
system currently in operation. This type of Stage II system uses a
vacuum pump on the vapor return line to help draw vapors from the
vehicle fill pipe into the UST. An advantage of this type of system is
that the rubber boot around the nozzle can be smaller and lighter (or
not used at all) and still draw the vapors into the vapor return hose.
This makes for an easier-to-handle nozzle, which is popular with
customers. About 70 percent of Stage II GDFs nationwide use the vacuum
assist approach.
    New Stage II equipment is normally required to achieve 95 percent
control effectiveness at certification. However, studies have shown
that in-use control efficiency depends on the proper installation,
operation, and maintenance of the control equipment at the GDF.\4\

Damaged, missing, or improperly operating components or systems can
significantly degrade the control effectiveness of a Stage II system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Petroleum Equipment Institute has published recommended
installation practices (PEI/RP300-93) and most states require
inspection, testing, and evaluation before a system is commissioned
for use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In-use effectiveness ultimately depends on the consistency of
inspections, follow-up review by state agencies, and actions by
operators to perform inspections and field tests and conduct
maintenance in a correct and timely manner. The EPA's early guidance
for Stage II discussed expected training, inspection, and testing
criteria, and most states have adopted and supplemented these criteria
as deemed necessary for balance and vacuum assist systems.\5\ In some
cases, states have strictly followed the EPA guidance but other states
have required a lesser level of inspection and enforcement efforts.
Past EPA studies have estimated Stage II in-use efficiencies of 92
percent with semi-annual inspections, 86 percent with annual
inspections and 62 percent with minimal or less frequent state
inspections.\6\ The in-use effectiveness of Stage II control systems
may vary from state to state, and may vary over time within any state
or nonattainment area because the in-use efficiency of Stage II vapor
recovery systems depends heavily on the ongoing maintenance and
oversight by GDF owners/operators and the state/local agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle Refueling
Control Programs,'' U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of
Mobile Sources, December 1991.
    \6\ ``Technical Guidance--Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for
Control of Vehicle Refueling at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
Volume I: Chapters,'' EPA-450/3-91-022a, November 1991. This study
is a composite of multiple studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery (ORVR) Systems

    In addition to Stage II controls, the 1990 CAA Amendments required
another method of controlling emissions from dispensing gasoline.
Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA requires an onboard system of capturing
vehicle-refueling emissions, commonly referred to as an ORVR system.\7\
ORVR consists of an activated carbon canister installed on the vehicle
into which vapors are routed from the vehicle fuel tank during
refueling. There the vapors are captured by the activated carbon in the
canister. To prevent the vapors from escaping through the fill pipe
opening, the vehicle employs a seal in the fill pipe which allows
liquid gasoline to enter but blocks vapor escape. In most cases, these
are ``liquid seals'' created by the incoming liquid gasoline slightly
backing near the bottom of the fill pipe. When the engine is started,
the vapors are purged from the activated carbon and into the engine
where they are burned as fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Unlike Stage II, which is a requirement only in ozone
nonattainment areas, ORVR requirements apply to vehicles everywhere.
More detail on ORVR is available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/orvr.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA promulgated ORVR standards on April 6, 1994 (59 FR 16262).
Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA required that the EPA's ORVR standards
apply to light-duty vehicles manufactured beginning in the fourth model
year after the model year in which the standards were promulgated, and
that ORVR systems provide a minimum evaporative emission capture
efficiency of 95 percent.
    Automobile manufacturers began installing ORVR on new passenger
cars in 1998 when 40 percent of new cars were required to have ORVR.
The regulation required the percentage of new cars with ORVR increase
to 80 percent in 1999 and 100 percent in 2000. The regulation also
required that ORVR for light duty trucks and vans (<6000 pounds (lbs)
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)) was to be phased-in during 2001
with 40 percent of such new vehicles required to have ORVR in 2001, 80
percent in 2002 and 100 percent in 2003. New heavier light-duty trucks
(6001-8500 lbs GVWR) were required to have 40 percent with ORVR by
2004, 80 percent by 2005 and 100 percent by 2006. New trucks up to
10,000 lbs GVWR manufactured as a complete chassis were all required to
have ORVR by 2006.\8\ Complete vehicle chassis for heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles between 10,001 and 14,000 lbs GVWR (Class 3) are very similar
to those between 8,501 and 10,000 lbs GVWR. For model consistency
purposes, manufacturers began installing ORVR on Class 3 complete
chassis in 2006 as well. So, after 2006, essentially all new gasoline-
powered vehicles less than 14,000 lbs GVWR are ORVR-equipped.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The EPA promulgated ORVR standards for light duty vehicles
and trucks on April 6, 1994, 59 FR 16262, codified at 40CFR parts 86
(including 86.098-8), 88 and 600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ORVR does not apply to all vehicles, but those not covered by the
ORVR requirement comprise a small percentage of the gasoline-powered
highway vehicle fleet (approximately 1.5 percent of gasoline
consumption). The EPA estimates that by the end of 2012, more than
71percent of vehicles currently on the road will have ORVR.\9\ This
percentage will increase over time as older cars and trucks are
replaced by new models. However, under the current regulatory
construct, motorcycles and heavy-duty gasoline vehicles not
manufactured as a complete chassis are not required to install ORVR, so
it is likely that there will be some very small percentage of gasoline
refueling emissions not captured by ORVR controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See EPA Memorandum ``Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
Widespread Use Assessment.'' A copy of this memorandum is located in
the docket for this action EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Even prior to the EPA's adoption of ORVR requirements, in 1993 EPA
adopted Onboard Diagnostic (OBD) System requirements for passenger cars
and light trucks, and eventually did so for heavy-duty gasoline
vehicles up to 14,000 lbs GVWR.\10\ These systems are designed to
monitor the in-use performance of various vehicle emission control
systems and components, including protocols for finding problems in the
purge systems and large and small vapor leaks in ORVR/evaporative
emission controls.\11\ OBD II systems were phased in for these vehicle
classes over the period from 1994-1996 for lighter vehicles and 2005-
2007 for heavy-duty gasoline vehicles, so, during the same time frame
that manufacturers were implementing ORVR into their vehicles, they
already had implemented or were implementing OBD II systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Federal Register at 58 FR 9468 published February 19,
1993, and subsequent amendments and the latest OBD regulations at 40
CFR part 86.1806-05 for program requirements in various years.
    \11\ ORVR systems are basically a subset of evaporative emission
systems because they share the same vapor lines, purge valves, purge
lines, and activated carbon canister.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2000, the EPA published a report addressing the effectiveness of
OBD II control systems.\12\ This study concluded that enhanced
evaporative and ORVR emission control systems are durable and low
emitting relative to the FTP (Federal Test Procedure) enhanced
evaporative emission standards, and that OBD II evaporative emissions
checks are a suitable replacement for functional evaporative emission
tests in state inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. OBD system
codes are interrogated and evaluated in a 30-vehicle emission I/M
program. A recent EPA review of OBD data gathered from I/M programs
from five states \13\ indicated relatively few vehicles had any
evaporative system-related OBD codes that would indicate a potential

problem with the vapor management system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Effectiveness of OBD II Evaporative Emission Monitors--30
Vehicle Study,'' EPA 420-R-00-018, October 2000.
    \13\ See EPA Memorandum, ``Review of Frequency of Evaporative
System Related OBD Codes for Five State I/M Programs.'' A copy of
this memorandum is located in the docket for this action EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on emissions tests of over 1,100 in-use ORVR-equipped
vehicles, EPA concluded that the average in-use efficiency of ORVR is
98 percent. The legal requirement for ORVR is 95 percent efficiency.
Thus, the actual reported control achieved in practice is greater than
the statutorily required level of control.

D. Compatibility Between Some Vapor Recovery Systems

    Even though the per-vehicle vapor recovery efficiency of ORVR
exceeds that of Stage II, Stage II vapor recovery systems have provided
valuable reductions in ozone precursors and air toxics as ORVR has been
phased into the motor vehicle fleet. In fact, overall refueling
emissions from vehicle fuel tanks are minimized by having both ORVR and
Stage II in place, but the incremental gain from retaining Stage II
decreases relatively quickly as ORVR penetration surpasses 75 percent
of dispensed gasoline. Please see Table 2 below. This occurs not only
because of a decreasing amount of gasoline being dispensed to non-ORVR
equipped vehicles, but also because differences in operational design
characteristics between ORVR and vacuum assist Stage II systems may in
some cases cause a reduction in the overall control system efficiency
compared to what could have been achieved relative to the individual
control efficiencies of either ORVR or Stage II emissions from the
vehicle fuel tank. The problem arises because the ORVR canister
captures the gasoline vapor emissions from the motor vehicle fuel tank
rather than the vapors being drawn off by the vacuum assist Stage II
system. This occurs because the fill pipe seal blocks the vapor from
reaching the Stage II nozzle. Thus, instead of drawing vapor-laden air
from the vehicle fuel tank into the underground storage tank (UST), the
vacuum pump of the Stage II system draws mostly fresh air into the UST.
This fresh air causes gasoline in the UST to evaporate inside the UST
and creates an internal increase in UST pressure. As the proportion of
ORVR vehicles increases, the amount of fresh air, void of gasoline
vapors, pumped into the UST also increases. Even with pressure/vacuum
valves in place this eventually leads to gasoline vapors being forced
out of the UST vent pipe into the ambient air. These new UST vent-stack
emissions detract from the overall recovery efficiency at the GDF. As
discussed in the proposed rule, the level of these UST vent stack
emissions varies based on several factors but can result in a net 1 to
10 percent decrease in overall control efficiency of vehicle fuel tank
emissions at any given GDF.\14\ The decrease in efficiency varies
depending on the vacuum assist technology design (including the use of
a mini-boot for the nozzle and the ratio of volume of air drawn into
the UST compared to the volume of gasoline dispensed (A/L) ratio), the
gasoline Reid vapor pressure, the air and gasoline temperatures, and
the fraction of throughput dispensed to ORVR vehicles. There are
various technologies that address these UST vent-stack emissions and
can extend the utility of Stage II to further minimize the overall
control of gasoline vapor emissions at the GDF. These technologies
include nozzles that sense when fresh air is being drawn into the UST
and stop or reduce the air flow. These ORVR-compatible nozzles are now
required in California and Texas. Another solution is the addition of
processors on the UST vent pipe that capture or destroy the gasoline
vapor emissions from the vent pipe. A number of these systems were
presented in comments on the proposed rule. While they may have merit,
installing these technologies adds to the expense of the control
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See EPA Memorandum ``Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery
Widespread Use Assessment.'' A copy of this memorandum is located in
the docket for this action EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076. The level of these
UST vent stack emissions varies based on several factors; EPA
estimates a 5.4 to 6.4 percentage point decrease in Stage II control
efficiency in the 2011-2015 time frame at GDFs employing non-ORVR
compatible vacuum assist Stage II nozzles. The decrease in
efficiency varies depending on the vacuum assist technology design
(including the use of a mini-boot for the nozzle and the ratio of
volume of air drawn into the UST compared to the volume of gasoline
dispensed (A/L) ratio), the gasoline Reid vapor pressure, the air
and gasoline temperatures, and the fraction of throughput dispensed
to ORVR vehicles. The values will increase over time as the fraction
of total gasoline dispensed to ORVR vehicles at Stage II GDFs
increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Proposed Rule To Determine Widespread Use of ORVR

    Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA provides discretionary authority to
the EPA Administrator to, by rule, revise or waive the section
182(b)(3) Stage II requirement for Serious, Severe, and Extreme ozone
nonattainment areas after the Administrator determines that ORVR is in
widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. The percentage of
non-ORVR vehicles and the percentage of gasoline dispensed to those
vehicles grow smaller each year as these older vehicles wear out and
are replaced by new ORVR-equipped models. Given the predictable nature
of this trend, the EPA proposed a date for ORVR widespread use.
    In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (76 FR 41731, July 15,
2011), the EPA proposed that ORVR widespread use will occur at the mid-
point in the 2013 calendar year, relying upon certain criteria outlined
in the proposed rule. This date was also proposed as the effective date
for the waiver of the CAA section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements for
Serious, Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas.
    The EPA used two basic approaches in determining when ORVR would be
in widespread use in the motor vehicle fleet. Both approaches focused
on the penetration of ORVR-equipped vehicles in the gasoline-powered
highway motor vehicle fleet. The first proposed approach focused on the
volume of gasoline that is dispensed into vehicles equipped with ORVR,
and compared the emissions reductions achieved by ORVR alone to the
reductions that can be achieved by Stage II controls alone. The second
approach focused on the fraction of highway motor gasoline dispensed to
ORVR-equipped vehicles.
    In the proposal, the EPA included Table 1 (republished below). This
work was based on outputs from EPA's MOVES 2010 motor vehicle emissions
model, which showed information related to the penetration of ORVR in
the national motor vehicle fleet projected to 2020. These model outputs
have been updated for the final rule to be consistent with the latest
public release of the model (MOVES 2010a) since that is the version of
the model states would use in any future inventory assessment work
related to refueling emissions control. Overall, ORVR efficiency was
shown in column 5 of Table 1 and was determined by multiplying the
fraction of gasoline dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles by ORVR's 98
percent in-use control efficiency.

        Table 1--Projected Penetration of ORVR in the National Vehicle Fleet by Year--Based on MOVES 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Vehicle                               Gasoline
            Calendar year                 population      VMT  Percentage       dispensed       ORVR Efficiency
                                          percentage                            percentage         percentage
1                                                     2                  3                  4                  5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006................................               39.5               48.7               46.2               45.3
2007................................               45.3               54.9               52.5               51.5
2008................................               50.1               60.0               57.6               56.4
2009................................               54.3               64.5               62.1               60.9
2010................................               59.0               69.3               66.9               65.6
2011................................               63.6               73.9               71.5               70.1
2012................................               67.9               78.0               75.6               74.1
2013................................               71.7               81.6               79.3               77.7
2014................................               75.2               84.6               82.6               80.9
2015................................               78.4               87.2               85.3               83.6
2016................................               81.2               89.4               87.7               85.9
2017................................               83.6               91.2               89.7               87.9
2018................................               85.6               92.7               91.3               89.5
2019................................               87.5               93.9               92.7               90.8
2020................................               89.0               94.9               93.9               92.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See EPA Memorandum ``Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment'' in the docket (number EPA-HQ-
  OAR-2010-1076) addressing details on issues related to values in this table.
Note: In this table, the columns have the following meaning.
1. Calendar year that corresponds to the percentages in the row associated with the year.
2. Percentage of the gasoline-powered highway vehicle fleet that have ORVR.
3. Percentage of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicles equipped with ORVR.
4. Amount of gasoline dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles as a percentage of all gasoline dispensed to highway
  motor vehicles.
5. Percentage from the same row in column 4 multiplied by 0.98.

    In the proposal, the EPA estimated that ORVR would need to achieve
in-use emission reductions of about 77.4 percent to be equivalent to
the amount of control Stage II alone would achieve. This estimate was
based on the in-use control efficiency of Stage II systems and
exemptions for Stage II for lower throughput GDFs. In the NPRM, the EPA
assumed that in areas where basic Stage II systems are used the control
efficiency of Stage II gasoline vapor control systems is 86 percent.
The use of this value depends on the assumption that daily and annual
inspections, periodic testing, and appropriate maintenance are
conducted in a correct and timely manner. In addressing comments, we
have stated that this efficiency could be nearer to 60% if inspections
testing and maintenance are not conducted and there is minimal
enforcement.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, ``Determination of Widespread Use of Onboard Refueling
Vapor Recovery (ORVR) and Waiver of Stage II Vapor Recovery
Requirements: Summary of Public Comments and Responses.'' March
2012. Document contained in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the EPA estimated that the percentage of gasoline
dispensed in an area that is covered by Stage II controls is 90
percent. Multiplying the estimated efficiency of Stage II systems (86
percent) by the estimated fraction of gasoline dispensed in
nonattainment areas from Stage II-equipped gasoline pumps yielded an
estimate of the area-wide control efficiency of Stage II programs of
77.4 percent (0.90 x 0.86 = 0.774 or 77.4 percent) for emissions
displaced from vehicle fuel tanks. 16 17 Table 1 indicated
this level of ORVR control efficiency is expected to be achieved during
calendar year 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See section 4.4.3 (especially Figure 4-14 and Table 4-4) in
``Technical Guidance--Stage II Vapor Recovery Systems for Control of
Vehicle Refueling Emissions at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,
Volume I: Chapters,'' EPA-450/3-91-022a, November 1991. A copy of
this document is located in the docket for this action EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-1076. This is based on annual enforcement inspections and on
allowable exemptions of 10,000/50,000 gallons per month as described
in section 324(a) of the CAA. The EPA recognizes that these two
values vary by state and that in some cases actual in-use
efficiencies, prescribed exemption levels, or both may be either
higher or lower.
    \17\ AP-42, The EPA's emission factors document, identifies
three sources of refueling emissions: Displacement, spillage, and
breathing losses. In the EPA Memorandum ``Onboard Refueling Vapor
Recovery Widespread Use Assessment'' (available in the public
docket), the EPA determined that for separate Stage II and ORVR
refueling events, spillage and breathing loss emission rates are
similar. Thus, this analysis focuses on differences in controlled
displacement emissions. Compatibility effects related to ORVR and
Stage II vacuum assist systems are addressed separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the second approach for estimating when ORVR is in widespread
use, we also observed from Table 1 that by the end of calendar year
2012 more than 75 percent of gasoline will be dispensed into ORVR-
equipped vehicles. As discussed in the NPRM, the EPA believed that this
percentage of ORVR coverage (>=75 percent) is substantial enough to
inherently be viewed as ``widespread'' under any ordinary understanding
of that term. Furthermore, in Table 1, the percentage of VMT by ORVR-
equipped vehicles (column 3) and the amount of gasoline dispensed into
ORVR-equipped vehicles (column 4) reached or exceeded 75 percent
between the end of year 2011 and end of 2012. The EPA believed this
provided further support for establishing a widespread use date after
the end of calendar year 2012. Based on the dates derived from these
two basic approaches, the EPA proposed to determine that ORVR will be
in widespread use by June 30, 2013, or the midpoint of calendar year
2013.

VI. This Action

A. Analytical Rationale for Final Rule

    Section 202(a)(6) of the CAA provides discretionary authority to
the EPA Administrator to, by rule, revise or waive the section
182(b)(3) Stage II requirement after the Administrator determines that
ORVR is in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. As
discussed in the NPRM, the EPA has broad discretion in how it defines
widespread use and the manner in which any final determination is
implemented. In our review of the public comments received on the
proposal, no commenter indicated that a widespread use determination
was inappropriate or took issue with the EPA's two-pronged analytical
approach. We have integrated responses to many comments throughout the
preamble to

this final rule. A more detailed set of responses is in a document
titled, ``Determination of Widespread Use of Onboard Refueling Vapor
Recovery (ORVR) and Waiver of Stage II Vapor Recovery, Summary of
Public Comments and Responses'' that can be found in the docket, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-1076.
    The analytical approaches used by the EPA to determine the
widespread use date are influenced by several key input parameters that
affect the estimates of the emission reduction benefits of Stage II
alone versus the benefits of ORVR alone and the phase-in of ORVR-
equipped vehicles. We received several comments on the assumptions and
parameters used by the EPA in the NPRM, and in some cases we have
updated the information used in calculations that support the final
rule, as discussed in the following paragraphs.
1. ORVR Parameters
     ORVR efficiency. The EPA used an in-use control efficiency
of ORVR of 98 percent in the proposal. This was based on the testing of
1,160 vehicles drawn from the field. EPA has updated its analysis to
include an additional 478 refueling emission test results for ORVR-
equipped vehicles that were conducted in calendar years 2010 and 2011.
The data set, which now includes over 1,600 vehicle tests for vehicles
from model years 2000-2010 with mileages ranging from 10,000 to over
100,000, continues to support the conclusion that the 98 percent in-use
efficiency values remain appropriate.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See the EPA memorandum ``Updated ORVR In-Use Efficiency.''
A copy of this memorandum is located in the docket for this action
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Modeling program inputs. The NPRM relied on EPA's MOVES
2010 model for estimating ORVR vehicle fleet penetration, VMT by ORVR
vehicles, and gallons of gasoline dispensed to ORVR vehicles. Since the
development of the NPRM, the EPA has publicly released MOVES 2010a. The
updated model incorporates many improvements. Those relevant here
include updates in ORVR vehicle sales, sales projections, scrappage,
fleet mix, annual VMT, and fuel efficiency. The EPA believes that the
modeling undertaken to determine the widespread use date for the final
rule should employ the EPA's latest MOVES modeling program because it
contains updated information that bears on the subject of this
rulemaking, and because the EPA expects states to also use it in any
state-specific demonstrations supporting future SIP revisions,
including revisions that seek to remove Stage II programs.
2. Stage II Parameters
     Stage II efficiency. The EPA used an in-use control
efficiency of 86 percent for Stage II in the proposal. As discussed
above, Stage II control efficiency depends on inspection, testing, and
maintenance by GDF owner/operators, and inspection and enforcement by
state/local agencies. Typical values range from 62 percent to 86
percent. The public comments referred the EPA to additional reported
information directly related to in-use effectiveness of Stage II vapor
recovery.\19\ The reports indicate that for balance and vacuum-assist
type Stage II systems in use in many states today, the in-use
effectiveness of Stage II is typically near 70 percent. Nonetheless,
the EPA has elected to retain the use of an 86 percent efficiency value
in the analyses supporting the final rule. This is because many state
programs have included the maintenance and inspection provisions
recommended by EPA to achieve this level of efficiency in their initial
SIPs that originally incorporated Stage II controls.\20\ Current in-use
efficiency values may well be lower based on the performance of the
Stage II technology itself or for other reasons related to maintenance
and enforcement. We are not rejecting the additional information from
commenters or the possibility that Stage II efficiency may be lower in
some states or nonattainment areas. However, the EPA believes these
issues are best examined in the SIP review process. If real in-use
efficiency across all existing Stage II programs is, in fact, lower
than 86 percent, the EPA's final analysis overestimates the length of
time required for emissions reductions from ORVR alone to eclipse the
reductions that can be achieved by Stage II alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See ``Draft Vapor Recovery Test Report,'' April 1999 by
CARB and CAPCOA (now cleared for public use), and ``Performance of
Balance Vapor Recovery Systems at Gasoline Dispensing Facilities'',
prepared by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District, May 18,
2000. Both reports are available in the public docket.
    \20\ The EPA report, ``Enforcement Guidance for Stage II Vehicle
Refueling Control Programs,'' U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation,
Office of Mobile Sources, December 1991, provides basic EPA guidance
on what a state SIP and accompanying regulations should include to
achieve high efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Stage II exemption rate. In sections 182(b)(3) and 324 of
the CAA, Congress permitted exemptions from Stage II controls for GDFs
of less than 10,000 gallons/month (privates) and 50,000 gallons/month
(independent small business marketers). The EPA analysis indicated that
these GDF throughput values exempted about 10 percent of annual
throughput in any given area. Some states included more strict
exemption rates, most commonly 10,000 gallons per month (3 percent of
throughput) for both privates and independent small business marketers.
A few other states' exemption provisions used values that fell within
or outside this range.\21\ Of the 21 states and the District of
Columbia with areas classified as Serious, Severe, or Extreme for ozone
and/or within the Ozone Transport Region, the plurality incorporated
exemption provisions in their state regulations, which exempted about
10 percent of throughput.\22\ Therefore, we believe it remains
reasonable to use that value within this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ There are a few states that limit Stage II exemptions to
only GDFs with less than 10,000 gpm throughput, which would exempt
about three to five percent of area-wide throughput.
    \22\ See the EPA memorandum ``Summary of Stage II Exemption
Program Values.'' A copy of this memorandum is located in the docket
for this action in EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Compatibility factor for vacuum assist Stage II systems.
The EPA discussed the compatibility factor at length in the NPRM and
provided relevant materials in the docket. Several commenters asked
that the EPA provide guidance on how the compatibility factor should be
incorporated into any similar analysis conducted by a state for
purposes of future SIP revisions involving Stage II programs. The
magnitude of the compatibility factor for any given area varies
depending on ORVR penetration, fraction of vacuum assist nozzles
relative to balance nozzles, and excess A/L for vacuum assist nozzles.
Two states have adopted measures to reduce this effect through the use
of ORVR-compatible nozzles and one state prohibits vacuum assist
nozzles completely. Due to these significant variables, the EPA is
electing not to include the compatibility factor in the widespread use
date determination analysis, but will provide the guidance requested by
the commenters for use in making future SIP revisions. To the extent
that compatibility emissions across all existing Stage II programs as a
whole are significant, the EPA's final analysis overestimates the
length of time required for emissions reductions from ORVR alone to
eclipse the reductions that can be achieved by Stage II alone.

B. Updated Analysis of Widespread Use

    As discussed previously, the EPA has used two approaches for
determining

when ORVR is in widespread use on a nationwide basis. After reviewing
our methodology and reviewing the related comments on the NPRM, we are
retaining three of the four basic analytical input parameters and
updating one. The in-use ORVR efficiency, the in-use Stage II
efficiency, and the Stage II exemption rate parameters are the same as
in the NPRM. However, we have updated the modeling program inputs as
discussed previously, and the results are reflected in Table 2.

      Table 2--Projected Penetration of ORVR in the National Vehicle Fleet by Year--Based on MOVES 2010(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Vehicle                               Gasoline
        End of calendar year              population      VMT  Percentage       dispensed       ORVR  Efficiency
                                          percentage                            percentage         percentage
1                                                     2                  3                  4                  5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006................................               42.6               51.2               49.2               48.2
2007................................               48.4               57.3               55.5               54.4
2008................................               53.3               62.3               60.5               59.2
2009................................               57.7               66.8               64.8               63.5
2010................................               62.4               71.6               69.5               68.1
2011................................               67.1               76.0               73.9               72.4
2012................................               71.4               80.0               77.7               76.1
2013................................               75.3               83.4               81.0               79.4
2014................................               78.7               86.3               84.0               82.3
2015................................               81.8               88.8               86.5               84.8
2016................................               84.5               90.9               88.6               86.8
2017................................               86.8               92.5               90.3               88.5
2018................................               88.8               93.9               91.9               90.0
2019................................               90.5               95.0               93.2               91.3
2020................................               92.0               95.9               94.3               92.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See EPA Memorandum ``Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Widespread Use Assessment'' in the docket (number EPA-HQ-
  OAR-2010-1076) addressing details on issues related to values in this table.
Note: In this table, the columns have the following meaning.
1. Calendar year that corresponds to the percentages in the row associated with the year.
2. Percentage of the gasoline-powered highway vehicle fleet that have ORVR.
3. Percentage of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by vehicles equipped with ORVR.
4. Amount of gasoline dispensed into ORVR-equipped vehicles as a percentage of all gasoline dispensed to highway
  motor vehicles.
5. Percentage from the same row in column 4 multiplied by 0.98.

    The results in Table 2 are applied in the context of the two basic
analytical approaches used in the NPRM for supporting the final date
associated with the EPA's widespread use determination. First, using
the analysis based on equal reductions for Stage II and ORVR, the 77.4
percent in-use emission reduction efficiency for ORVR will occur in May
2013 (See column 5 of Table 2). Second, 75 percent of gasoline will be
dispensed to ORVR-equipped vehicles by April 2012 (See column 4 of
Table 2).

C. Widespread Use Date

    The updated analysis indicates that the two benchmarks will occur
about a year apart, and that one benchmark of April 2012 has already
passed. At the time of the NPRM, both of the benchmark dates for the
ORVR widespread use determination were in the future, many months after
the EPA's expected final action. Thus, given the basic merits of both
approaches, the EPA believed it was reasonable to propose a date
between the dates associated with the two analytical approaches.
    The EPA's updated analysis presents a somewhat different picture.
The April 2012 benchmark date has already passed, and the May 2013
benchmark date is less than 1 year away. We believe it is reasonable
for the EPA Administrator to determine that ORVR is in widespread use
in the motor vehicle fleet as of the date this final action is
published in the Federal Register because this final rule is being
promulgated within the window bounded by the two benchmark dates
derived from the updated analyses.
    As discussed previously in this notice and in the NPRM, the EPA has
discretion in setting the widespread use date. It is evident from the
public comments on the NPRM from states and members of the regulated
industry, and from recent state actions, that there is a desire to
curtail Stage II installations at newly constructed GDFs, and to
initiate an orderly phase-out of Stage II controls at existing
GDFs.\23\ Since one of the two analytical benchmark dates (April 2012)
has passed, and we expect in most cases the second analytical benchmark
date (May 2013) will have passed by the time the EPA is able to
complete approvals of SIP revisions removing Stage II programs and pass
any revised regulations, then in response to comments asking us to
expedite the ORVR widespread use finding, the EPA Administrator is
determining that ORVR is in widespread use in the motor vehicle fleet
as of May 16, 2012. Accordingly, as of May 16, 2012 the requirement to
implement a Stage II emissions control program under section 182(b)(3)
of the CAA is waived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ For example, in November 2011, New Hampshire put new
regulations in place that eliminate the need for new GDFs to install
Stage II, allows current GDFs with Stage II to decommission the
systems, and requires all systems to be decommissioned by December
22, 2015. In May of 2011, New York issued an enforcement discretion
directive which curtailed the need for new stations to install Stage
II and permitted current installations to be decommissioned. These
actions remain under review of EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Implementation of the Rule Provisions

    In this final action, the ORVR widespread use determination and
waiver of the section 182(b)(3) requirement applies to the entire
country. This includes areas that are now classified as Serious or
above for ozone nonattainment, as well as those that may be classified
or reclassified as Serious or above in the future.
    In the NPRM, we indicated that states could potentially demonstrate
that ORVR was in widespread use in specific areas sooner than the
general, national date. Such a provision is no longer

needed because today's action provides for a nationwide determination
of widespread use effective on May 16, 2012.
    As stated in this final action and as pointed out by several
commenters, the ORVR widespread use determination and section 182(b)(3)
waiver determination does not obligate states to remove any existing
Stage II vapor recovery requirements. It is possible that a state would
determine it beneficial to continue implementation of a Stage II
program. For example, in an area where ORVR-equipped fleet penetration
is considerably less than the national average, or where Stage II
exemptions are significantly more restrictive than the national
assumptions used in this analysis, a state may determine that it would
not be appropriate to modify its program immediately, but that it would
be more appropriate to do so at a later date. In assessing whether and
how to phase out Stage II requirements, states are encouraged to
review, and as needed revise the area-specific assumptions about taking
into consideration their inspection and enforcement resource
commitments as well as ORVR/vacuum-assist Stage II compatibility.
    A state that chooses to remove the program must submit a SIP
revision requesting EPA to approve such action and provide, as
appropriate, a demonstration that the SIP revision is consistent with
CAA section 110(1), and in some cases consistent with CAA section 193.
The EPA will provide additional guidance on conducting assessments to
support Stage II-related SIP revisions.\24\ The EPA encourages states
to review this guidance and consult with the EPA Regional Offices on
developing SIP revisions seeking EPA approval for phasing out existing
Stage II programs in a manner that ensures air quality protections are
maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor Recovery
Programs: Guidance on Satisfying Requirements of Clean Air Act
Sections 110(l), 193, and 184(b)(2) (tentative title).'' U.S. EPA
Office of Air and Radiation, forthcoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(l) precludes the Administrator from approving a SIP
revision if it would interfere with applicable CAA requirements
(including, but not limited to, attainment and maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS and achieving reasonable further progress). A state may
demonstrate through analysis that removing a Stage II program in an
area as of a specific date will not result in an emissions increase in
the area, or that the small and ever-declining increase is offset by
other simultaneous changes in the implementation plan. However, a state
may find that by removing Stage II requirements, they are reducing the
overall level of emissions reductions they have previously applied
toward meeting CAA rate of progress (ROP) or reasonable further
progress (RFP) requirements, or demonstrating attainment. If so, the
state should explain how removing Stage II controls in the area would
not interfere with attaining and maintaining the ozone NAAQS in the
area. In such circumstances, it is possible that additional emissions
reductions from other measures may be needed to offset the removal of
Stage II.
    If EPA has approved a state's adoption of Stage II requirements
into a SIP before November 15, 1990, section 193 would also apply.
Section 193 provides that removal of an emissions control program
cannot result in any emissions increase unless the increase is offset.
Section 193 only applies if an area is nonattainment for the standard.
    State and local agencies should also consider any transportation
conformity impacts related to removing Stage II if emissions reductions
from Stage II are included in a SIP-approved on-road motor vehicle
emissions budget. States may need to adjust conformity budgets or the
components of the budget if removing Stage II requirements would alter
expected air quality benefits.
    In previous memoranda, the EPA provided guidance to states on
removing Stage II at refueling facilities dedicated to certain segments
of the motor vehicle fleet (e.g., new automobile assembly plants,
rental car facilities, E85 dispensing pumps, and corporate fleet
facilities). In these specific cases where all or nearly all of the
vehicles being refueled are ORVR-equipped, the EPA could conservatively
conclude that widespread use of ORVR had occurred in these fleets.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ ``Removal of Stage II Vapor Recovery in Situation where
Widespread Use of Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery is
Demonstrated,'' from Stephen D. Page and Margo Tsirigotis Oge, EPA,
December 12, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Implementation of Rule Provisions in the Ozone Transport Region

    States and the District of Columbia in the OTR in the northeastern
U.S. are also subject to a separate Stage II-related requirement. Under
section 184(b)(2) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7511c(b)(2)), all areas in the
OTR, both attainment and nonattainment areas, must implement control
measures capable of achieving emissions reductions comparable to those
achievable through Stage II controls. The CAA does not contain specific
provisions giving authority to the EPA Administrator to waive this
independent requirement. The section 184(b)(2) requirement does not
impose Stage II per se, but rather is a requirement that OTR states
achieve an amount of emissions reductions comparable to the amount that
Stage II would achieve. Moreover, section 202(a)(6), in allowing for a
waiver of the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement for nonattainment
areas, does not refer to the independent section 184(b)(2)
requirements. Therefore, the section 184(b)(2) Stage II-related
requirement for the OTR will continue to remain in place even after the
ORVR widespread use determination and section 182(b)(3) waiver
effective date.
    In the mid-1990s, the EPA issued guidance on estimating what levels
of emissions reductions would be ``comparable'' to those reductions
achieved by Stage II.\26\ In response, most OTR states simply adopted
Stage II programs rather than identify other measures that got the same
degree of emissions reductions. Given the continued penetration of
ORVR-equipped vehicles into the overall vehicle fleet, Stage II-
comparable emissions are significantly less than in the past, and
continue to decline. Accordingly, the EPA is issuing updated guidance
on determining ``comparable measures.'' States in the OTR should refer
to that guidance if preparing a SIP revision to remove Stage II
programs in areas of the OTR.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ ``Stage II Comparability Study for the Northeast Ozone
Transport Region,'' (EPA-452/R-94-011; January 1995).
    \27\ ``Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor Recovery
Programs: Guidance on Satisfying Requirements of Clean Air Act
Sections 110(l), 193, and 184(b)(2) (tentative title).'' U.S. EPA
Office of Air and Radiation, forthcoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters on the NPRM urged the EPA to revise its previous
interpretation of section 184(b)(2) to permit ORVR to be recognized as
a Stage II comparable emission reduction measure. This issue is not
within the scope of this rulemaking, and EPS is not taking final agency
action implementing section 184(b)(2) or an interpretation thereof.
However, for informational purposes, we point out that simply treating
the ORVR requirements under section 202(a)(6) as a comparable measure
that an OTR SIP must additionally contain would arguably render the
184(b)(2) requirement a nullity, which could be an impermissible
statutory interpretation. If commenters wish to further address this
issue, we ask that they raise their concerns in any future SIP actions
under section 184(b)(2) regarding OTR states that may affect them. In
addition, we note that the expected level of emissions reductions

that Stage II programs can obtain has changed significantly in the past
15 years with ORVR-equipped vehicles phasing in at the rate of 3-4
percent of the fleet each calendar year. Therefore, the EPA is issuing
updated guidance on estimating the emissions reductions needed to be
comparable to those achievable through Stage II controls.
Theoretically, comparable measures could in some areas mean no
additional control beyond ORVR is required if Stage II is achieving no
additional emission reduction benefit in the area, or has reached a
point of providing only a declining de minimis benefit.

F. Comments on Other Waiver Implementation Issues

    Numerous commenters on the NPRM urged the EPA to adopt provisions
in the final rule that would exempt new gasoline dispensing facilities
with construction occurring between the final rule publication and the
effective Stage II waiver date from installing Stage II equipment. The
timing issue is now largely moot since widespread use is deemed to have
occurred on the effective date of this action. However, under the CAA,
states adopt state-specific or area-specific rules, which are then
submitted to the EPA for approval into the SIP. These rules are
independently enforceable under state law, and also become federally
enforceable when the EPA approves them into the SIP. The EPA cannot
unilaterally change legally-adopted state statutes or rules or
otherwise revise an approved SIP that was not erroneously approved. The
EPA's only authority to establish requirements that would apply in lieu
of approved SIPs is its authority under CAA section 110(c) to
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). To trigger FIP
authority, the EPA must first determine that a state has failed to
submit a required SIP or that the state's SIP must be disapproved. The
circumstances of this ORVR widespread use finding and waiver of the
section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirement to do not present either of
those situations. According to requirements established by the CAA that
are applicable here, states will need to develop and submit SIP
revisions to the EPA in order to change or eliminate SIP-approved state
rules that set forth the compliance dates for newly constructed GDFs.
    Commenters also urged EPA to simply allow states to eliminate all
active Stage II programs from certain nonattainment areas after the
widespread use date, without requiring SIP revisions from states. While
the EPA has discretion to determine the widespread use date, the EPA
cannot simply nullify states' rules that are binding and enforceable
under state law. In order to change the federal enforceability of SIPs,
states must go through the SIP revision process, and the EPA can
approve the SIP revision only if the provisions of section 110(l) and
any other applicable requirements, such as the requirements of section
193 and the comparable measures requirement for OTR states, are
satisfied. Today's final rule takes no action in implementing CAA
sections 110(l), 193, or 184(b)(2), and any future final actions
regarding ``comparable measures'' SIPs will be fact-specific in
response to individual state submissions. Also, subsequent to the
effective waiver date of the section 182(b)(3) Stage II requirements,
areas currently implementing the EPA-approved Stage II programs in
their SIPs as a result of obligations under the 1-hour or 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, would be required to continue implementing these programs
until the EPA approves a SIP revision adopted under state law removing
the requirement from the state's ozone implementation plan.

VII. Estimated Cost

    As part of the NPRM, the EPA conducted an initial assessment of the
costs and savings to gasoline dispensing facility owners related to
this proposed action. The report titled, ``Draft Regulatory Support
Document, Decommissioning Stage II Vapor Recovery, Financial Benefits
and Costs,'' is available in the public docket for this action. The
report examines the initial costs and savings to facility owners
incurred in the decommissioning of Stage II vapor recovery systems, as
well as changes in recurring costs associated with above ground
hardware maintenance, operations, and administrative tasks. The EPA
received no substantive comment on the draft report, other than a
concern that the savings identified therein may not come to pass as
quickly as envisioned in the draft report if the EPA does not provide
updated guidance on comparable measures for the OTR states. We intend
to address this concern by issuing separate guidance for the
states.\28\ EPA will post this action at the following web site
address: http://www.epa.gov/glo/actions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Phasing Out Stage II Gasoline Refueling Vapor Recovery
Programs: Guidance on Satisfying Requirements of Clean Air Act
Sections 110(l ), 193, and 184(b)(2) (tentative title).'' U.S. EPA
Office of Air and Radiation, forthcoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the re-analysis following the NPRM, the EPA reviewed the
input values used for the proposal draft. Most input values were
confirmed as reasonable and representative but it was concluded that
two of the values should be updated. These include: (1) The pre-tax
price of gasoline used in the foregone vapor recovery savings
calculation, which increased from $2.30 in 2010 to $3.04 in 2011
(average price per gallon), and (2) the number of Stage II facilities
potentially affected by SIP revisions removing Stage II requirements in
non-California Serious, Severe and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas
which increased from 26,900 to 30,600 in 19 states and the District of
Columbia. As discussed in our final regulatory support document, the
EPA estimates recurring cost savings of about $3,000 per year for a
typical gasoline dispensing facility, and an annual nationwide savings
of up to $91 million if Stage II is phased out of the approximately
30,600 dispensing facilities outside of California that are required to
have Stage II vapor recovery systems under section 182(b)(3) of the
CAA.\29\ This analysis assumes that Stage II is removed from GDFs over
a three year time frame in an equal number each year. What actually
occurs will depend on actions by the individual states. If the states
submit and EPA approves SIP revisions to remove Stage II systems from
these GDFs, the EPA projects savings of about $10.2 million in the
first year, $40.5 million in the second year, and $70.9 million in the
third year. Long term savings are projected to be about $91 million per
year, compared to the current use of Stage II systems in these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See ``Final Regulatory Support Document, Decommissioning
Stage II Vapor Recovery, Financial Benefits and Costs,'' available
in public docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates.
Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this action on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
in the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (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; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule
will not impose any new requirements on small entities. Rather, it
provides criteria for reducing existing regulatory requirements on
gasoline dispensing facilities, some of which may qualify as small
businesses.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments, or the private sector. Therefore, this action is
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action
addresses the removal of a requirement regarding gasoline vapor
recovery equipment, but does not impose any obligations to remove these
programs.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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 in Executive Order 13132. This action does not impose any new
mandates on state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (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. It does not impose additional costs on
gasoline distribution, but rather promises to lower operating and
maintenance costs for gasoline dispensing facilities by facilitating
removal of redundant gasoline refueling vapor controls.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 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. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment under the EPA's NAAQS for ozone. This action proposes to
waive the requirement for states to adopt largely redundant Stage II
programs, based on a determination of widespread use of ORVR in the
motor vehicle fleet.

K. 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. The 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 upon publication in the Federal Register.

IX. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by the CAA, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.); relevant provisions of the CAA
include, but are not limited to sections 182(b)(3), 202(a)(6),
301(a)(1), and 307(b), and 307(d)(42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(3), 7521(a)(6),
7601(a)(1), 7607(b), and 7607(d)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: May 9, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart G--[Amended]

0
2. Section 51.126 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  51.126  Determination of widespread use of ORVR and waiver of CAA
section 182(b)(3) Stage II gasoline vapor recovery requirements.

    (a) Pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator has determined that, effective May 16, 2012, onboard
refueling vapor recovery (ORVR) systems are in widespread use in the
motor vehicle fleet within the United States.
    (b) Effective May 16, 2012, the Administrator waives the
requirement of Clean Air Act section 182(b)(3) for Stage II vapor
recovery systems in ozone nonattainment areas regardless of
classification. States must submit and receive EPA approval of a
revision to their approved State Implementation Plans before removing
Stage II requirements that are contained therein.

[FR Doc. 2012-11846 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 29333]
[DOCID:fr22my06-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2698-033--North Carolina]

Duke Power Company LLC; East Fork Hydroelectric Project; Notice
of Proposed Restricted Service List for a Programmatic Agreement for
Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places

May 12, 2006.
    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that, to
eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the
Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular
phase or issue in a proceeding.\1\ The restricted service list should
contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment
of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff is consulting with the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (hereinafter, SHPO) and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (hereinafter, Council) pursuant to the
Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470 f), to
prepare and execute a programmatic agreement for managing properties
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of
Historic Places at the East Fork Hydroelectric Project No. 2698-033
(SHPO Reference Number ER03-2382).
    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission and the
SHPO would satisfy the Commission's section 106 responsibilities for
all individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the license
until the license expires or is terminated (36 CFR 800.13(e)). The
Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section 106 for the East Fork
Project would be fulfilled through the programmatic agreement, which
the Commission proposes to draft in consultation with certain parties
listed below. The executed programmatic agreement would be incorporated
into any Order issuing a license.
    Duke Power Company LLC, as licensee for Project No. 2698, the
United States Forest Service, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
have expressed an interest in this preceding and are invited to
participate in consultations to develop the programmatic agreement.
    For purposes of commenting on the programmatic agreement, we
propose to restrict the service list for the aforementioned project as
follows:
    Don Klima or Representative, Advisory Council on Historic,
Preservation, The Old Post Office Building, Suite 803, 1100
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
    Jennifer Huff or Representative, Duke Power, P.O. Box 1006, Mail
Code EC12Y, Charlotte, NC 28201-1006.
    Renee Gledhill-Earley, North Carolina Department of Cultural
Resources, 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617.
    Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Attention: Tyler Howe, Qualla
Boundary, P.O. Box 455, Cherokee, NC 28719.
    Rodney Snedecker, United States Forest Service, P.O. Box 2750,
Ashville, NC 28802.
    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest
to be included. Also please identify any concerns about historic
properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties. If historic
properties are to be identified within the motion, please use a
separate page, and label it NON-PUBLIC Information.
    An original and 8 copies of any such motion must be filed with
Magalie Salas, the Secretary of the Commission (888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426) and must be served on each person whose name
appears on the official service list. Please put the project name
``East Fork Project'' and number ``P-2698-033'' on the front cover of
any motion. If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list
will be effective at the end of the 15 day period. Otherwise, a further
notice will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed within the
15 day period.

Magalie Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7699 Filed 5-19-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 32 (Friday, February 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11030-11031]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03219]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-47-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Power and Light Company, Wisconsin Public
Service Corporation, Madison Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Amendment to December 13, 2016 Joint Amendment to
December 13, 2016 Joint Application (Revised Pro Forma Accounting
Entries) under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Wisconsin Power
and Light Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 2/9/17.
    Accession Number: 20170209-5266.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-60-000.
    Applicants: TerraForm Private LLC, Meadow Creek Project Company
LLC, Goshen Phase II LLC, Wolverine Creek Goshen Interconnection LLC,
Canadian Hills Wind, LLC, Rockland Wind Farm LLC, Burley Butte Wind
Park, LLC, Golden Valley Wind Park, LLC, Milner Dam Wind Park, LLC,
Oregon Trail Wind Park, LLC, Pilgrim Stage Station Wind Park, LLC,
Thousand Springs Wind Park, LLC, Tuana Gulch Wind Park, LLC, Camp Reed
Wind Park, LLC,

Payne's Ferry Wind Park, LLC, Salmon Falls Wind Park, LLC, Yahoo Creek
Wind Park, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to January 6, 2017 Application for
Authorization under Section 203 of the FPA of TerraForm Private LLC, et
al.
    Filed Date: 2/9/17.
    Accession Number: 20170209-5275.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/21/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-763-001.
    Applicants: Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Submission of Corrected Formulary
Rate Tariff Depreciation Rates to be effective 3/10/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170210-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-957-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rev OATT & OA RE
Clarifications Related to Pumped Storage to be effective 4/11/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170210-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-958-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement Stanton
Energy Reliability Center Project SA No. 945 to be effective 2/3/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170210-5072.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-959-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revised ISA, Service
Agreement No. 1816, Queue No U1-032--Assigned to City Point to be
effective 9/28/2009.
    Filed Date: 2/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170210-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-960-000.
    Applicants: Cedar Bay Generating Company, Limited Partnership.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: FPL on Behalf of Cedar Bay
Generating Company, L P PPA (Tolling) Cancellation to be effective 1/1/
2017.
    Filed Date: 2/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170210-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/3/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 10, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03219 Filed 2-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18634-18635]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08911]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0009]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 103
individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    FMCSA received applications from 103 individuals who requested an
exemption from the vision standard in the FMCSRs.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10).

III. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption if
it finds such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater then, the level that would be achieved
absent such an exemption.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal
exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's
medical information provided by the applicant.

IV. Conclusion

    The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the
criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal
exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of
safety that would be equivalent to or greater than, the level of safety
that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). Therefore, the 103 applicants in this notice have been
denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10).
    Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of
final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final
action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent
denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically
publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following two applicants did not have sufficient driving
experience over the past three years under normal highway operating
conditions: Christopher E. Day (OR); Andrew R. Sampson (MD).
    The following 41 had no experience operating a CMV:

Aktham G. Abdelraouf (UT)
Javier A. Alcantara (FL)
Robbie R. Austin (ID)
John J. Beich (FL)
Michael J. Berry (PA)
Joseph B. Chun Tei (CA)
Kevin D. Craft (LA)
Dane C. Czerniak (PA)
Michael Deckert (PA)
Joseph F. Desgrottes (FL)
Brian S. Duncan (MO)
Joseph Eppolito (NY)
William E. Fowler (VA)
Levin D. Gann-Olehy (MN)
Abdirisak A. Hassan (MN)
George A. Kellner (FL)
Brian D. Leeper (IN)
Kelvin K. Mcatee (IL)
Adrian Mendoza (CA)
John R. Menendez (MO)
Andre J. Murdock (MD)
Donald J. Nelson (ID)
Thomas M. Palmer (PA)
Joseph L. Rigsby (AL)
Andrew W. Rocole (NE)
Homero Saenz (KY)
Reginald I. Sessum (NY)
Antwine Simmons (GA)
Saban R. Sosic (MI)
Miguel A. Soto (CA)
James V. Stuart (MA)
Travis D. Summerville (IL)
Donavon X. Taylor (MS)
Paul R. Todi (KY)
Carlos M. Torres Nieves (TX)
Ryan Tortorelli (CO)
Isai Trejo (CO)
Matthew C. Walker (IN)
Felicia R. Warnick (IL)
David A. Whittam (WA)
Wade R. Winckler (SD)

    The following 13 applicants did not have 3 years of experience
driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies:

Steven J. Brown (NY)
Joseph S. Clymer (OH)
Scott R. Dawley (IA)
Gary A. Foley (NH)
Antonio E. Gargano (PA)
Clyde M. Kennedy (VA)
Elmer D. King (PA)
Curtis M. Kirkland (GA)
Paul L. Koch (WI)
Lee A. Leasure (CA)
Gregory J. Mastey (WI)
Donald R. Pierson (WA)
Jeffrey Shauver (IN)

    The following 11 applicants did not have 3 years of recent
experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency:

Arthur T. Brown (FL)
Henry M. Darden (DC)
Theodore A. DuBreuil (MI)
Thomas S. Ewald (IA)
Barry J. Friedlander (NY)
Gregory P. Grimes (OK)
Louis W. Henderson (DE)
Michael A. Higgins (IL)
Rex R. Pannell (AR)
Ricky A. Schott (PA)
Jamie S. White (GA)

    The following eight applicants did not have sufficient driving
experience during the past 3 years under normal highway operating
conditions (gaps in driving record):

Brannon S. Alexander (MO)
Russell E. Burden (WY)
Jeffrey P. Campbell (KY)
Daniel D. Diggs (TX)
Ahmed M. Gutale (MN)
Zachary W.L. Justice (OH)
Joanna Marlow (NM)
Lawrence B. Reyes (WA)

    The following applicant, William D. Harris (IN), contributed to
accident(s) in which the applicant was operating a CMV, which is a
disqualifying offense.
    The following applicant, Marty J. Prouty (IA), did not demonstrate
the level of safety required for interstate driving based on the state-
issued driving report (excessive moving/non-moving violations during 3-
year period).
    The following applicant, Johnny Frasier (FL), did not have an
optometrist or ophthalmologist willing to make a statement that they
are able to operate a commercial vehicle from a vision standpoint.
    The following 18 applicants were denied for multiple reasons:

Fnu Aryan (TX)
Dennis K. Bench (MT)
David A. Bronson (FL)
Elliott D. Hain (PA)
Dennis L. Johnson (NC)
Paul E. Kemp (MS)
Jeffrey T. Landry (NC)
Joshua S. Little (MD)
Progress A. Lloyd (NC)
Lydia McCormick (NY)
Mark A. Myers (IN)
Deborah A. Nichols (MI)
Ronald Sapp (GA)
Craig Scott (GA)
Jeffery L. Shick (IL)
Joy S. Smith (TX)
Patrick J. Stempel (NY)
Scott W. Ward (PA)

    The following three applicants have not had stable vision for the
preceding 3-year period: Daniel R. Parramore (FL); Cheryl A. Phelps
(OH); Guadalupe Potter (WA).
    The following four applicants drove interstate while restricted to
intrastate driving:

Michael D. Cameron (TN)
Thomas R. Row (PA)
Joel Vasquez (TX)
Tony L. Willschau (SD)

    Issued on: April 23, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-08911 Filed 4-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P