Assessing the Effect of Five Gasoline Properties on Exhaust Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles certified to Tier-2 Standards

                       Analysis of Data from EPA Phase 3

                                (EPAct/V2/E-89)

                                 Appendix I.3f
                              Final Model Fitting
                    Non-methane Hydrocarbons (NMHC) (Bag 3)

No. Observations:			   837
No. Vehicles:		  		     15
No. censored measurements:		   119
No. missing measurements:		       0
No. measurements removed:		       0
Model Type:				Tobit regression

I.3f.1  Model Fitting based on the 11-term design model.

Model fitting for the 11-term design model gives results identical to those for the 16-term extended model, as presented below.
I.3f.2 Model Fitting based on the 16-term extended model.

    Models fit for NMHC (Bag 3): (Grand Intercept not fit by Tobit models).
Model Term
                                   Notation
                                     Model

                                     Full
                                    FM6[1]
                                      FM8
                                      FM9
                                     FM10
                                     FM11
                                     etOH
Ze
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                     Arom
Za
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x
                                      RVP
Zr
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T50
Z5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      T90
Z9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                 etOH x etOH
ZZee
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  T50 x T50
ZZ55
                                      ●
                                      x

                                 etOH x Arom
ZZea
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  etOH x RVP
ZZer
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                  etOH x T50
ZZe5
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  etOH x T90
ZZe9
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  Arom x RVP
ZZar
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  Arom x T50
ZZa5
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  Arom x T90
ZZa9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  T50 x T90
ZZ59
                                      ●
                                      x

                                  RVP x T90
ZZr9
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      ●
                                      x

1  Indicates "Full minus 6," etc.

NMHC (Bag 3): Model fitting history, starting with the 17-term extended model.
                                Fit Parameters

                             Test with respect to
                                Previous Model
Model
                                                                         p-1[1]
                                     -2lnL

                                                                           Dev.
                                                                              d
                                                                    Pr>χ[2]
Full Model
                                                                             16
                                   2447.661

FM6
                                                                             10
                                   2448.148

                                     0.487
                                       6
                                     0.998
FM8
                                                                              8
                                   2449.275

                                     1.127
                                       2
                                     0.569
FM8
                                                                              7
                                   2449.727

                                     0.452
                                       1
                                     0.501
FM10
                                                                              6
                                   2450.108

                                     0.381
                                       1
                                     0.537
FM11[2]
                                                                              5
                                   2450.114

                                     0.006
                                       1
                                     0.938

[1] Total number of terms excludes the intercept, as the Tobit
Models do not fit intercepts.
[2] Best fit with respect to the 16-term extended model.

NMHC (Bag 3): Coefficients and Tests of Effect for the Full and Reduced Models, with respect to the 16-term extended model.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 2 (Thursday, January 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 275-277]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31602]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 2 / Thursday, January 3, 2013 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1346; Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-047-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; REIMS Aviation S.A. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
REIMS AVIATION S.A. Model F406 airplanes. This proposed AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as fretting (wear and/or chafing) found between the elevator
pushrod assembly and horizontal tail structure, which could cause the
elevator pushrod to jam and could result in loss of control. We are
issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 19,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
REIMS Aviation Industries, A[eacute]rodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360
Prunay, France; telephone: <IP_ADDRESS>.65; fax: <IP_ADDRESS>.57;
Internet: http://www.geciaviation.com/en/. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1346;
Directorate Identifier 2012-CE-047-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No. 2012-0164, dated August 28, 2012 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    During maintenance, fretting has been found between the elevator
pushrod assembly and horizontal tail structure on Reims F406
aeroplanes. In addition, bending was found on a pushrod assembly
Part Number (P/N) 6015034-1. The investigation has not yet
established the exact cause(s) of these occurrences.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of a pushrod and consequent jamming of the elevator
controls, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires inspection of
the pushrods and horizontal tail structure to detect fretting,
bending or eccentricity and, depending on findings, replacement with
a serviceable pushrod, or repair. This AD also requires the return
on replaced pushrods to RAI for investigation.
    This AD is considered to be an interim action and further AD
action may follow.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    REIMS Aviation Industries has issued Service Bulletin No. F406-70,
dated July 16, 2012. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 7 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $2,380, or $340 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 2.5 work-hours and require parts costing $1,900, for a cost
of $2,112.50 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

REIMS Aviation S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2012-1346; Directorate
Identifier 2012-CE-047-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 19, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Reims Aviation S.A. Model F406 airplanes,
serial numbers F406-0001 through F406-0096, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of fretting (wear and/or
chafing) found between the elevator pushrod assembly and horizontal
tail structure. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct any
discrepancies with the elevator pushrod assembly and the horizontal
tail structure, which could cause the elevator pushrod to fail.
Failure of the elevator pushrod could cause the flight control to
jam, which could result in loss of control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 4 months after the effective date of this
AD, inspect the elevator pushrod assemblies, part number (P/N)
6015034-1, and the horizontal tail structure following the
Accomplishment Instructions in REIMS Aviation Industries Service
Bulletin No. F406-70, dated July 16, 2012.
    (2) Before further flight after the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, if fretting is found on the horizontal
tail structure, or the clearance between the elevator pushrod
assemblies and the horizontal tail structure is found to be
insufficient, or looseness at riveted end fittings is found on the
elevator pushrods, contact REIMS Aviation Industries at the address
specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for a repair scheme and
incorporate the repair scheme.
    (3) Before further flight after the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, if bending or eccentricity of an
elevator pushrod is found that exceeds the allowable limits, replace
each affected elevator pushrod with a serviceable part following
REIMS Aviation Industries Service Bulletin No. F406-70, dated July
16, 2012.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2012-0164, dated August 28, 2012, and REIMS Aviation Industries
Service Bulletin No. F406-70, dated July 16, 2012, for related
information. For service information related to this AD, contact
REIMS Aviation Industries, A[eacute]rodrome de Reims Prunay, 51360
Prunay,

France; telephone: <IP_ADDRESS>.65; fax: <IP_ADDRESS>.57; Internet:
http://www.geciaviation.com/en/. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 27, 2012.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-31602 Filed 1-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3417-3422]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1356]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0008; A-1-FRL-9621-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Determination of Attainment of the One-Hour Ozone
Standard for the Springfield (Western Massachusetts) Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to determine that the Springfield
(Western Massachusetts), serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area did
not meet the applicable deadline of December 31, 2003 for attaining the
one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. This
proposed determination is based upon complete, certified, quality-
assured ambient air quality monitoring data for the 2001-2003
monitoring period showing that the area had an expected ozone
exceedance rate above the level of the now revoked one-hour ozone NAAQS
during that period. Separate from and independent of this proposed
determination, EPA is also proposing to determine that the Springfield
(Western Massachusetts) serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area
currently attains the now revoked one-hour NAAQS for ozone, based upon
complete, quality-assured, certified ambient air monitoring data for
the 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring

periods. Preliminary one-hour ozone data available for 2011 also show
the area continues to meet the one-hour NAAQS for ozone. If EPA
finalizes its determination that the area is currently attaining the
one-hour standard, the obligation to submit one-hour ozone contingency
measures will be suspended. EPA is proposing these determinations under
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 23,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2012-0008 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2012-0008,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2),
Boston, MA 02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of
operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2012-0008. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office
Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble:

I. What is EPA proposing?
    A. Proposed Determination of Failure To Attain by Applicable
Attainment Date
    B. Proposed Determination of Current Attainment
II. What is the background for these proposed actions?
    A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
    B. Basis and Effect of Proposed Determinations
III. What are EPA's analyses of data for purposes of determining
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard?
    A. How does epa compute whether an area meets the one-hour ozone
standard?
    B. EPA's Analyses of the One-Hour Ozone Data for the Springfield
(Western Massachusetts) Area
IV. Proposed Determinations
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing two separate and independent determinations for
the Springfield (Western Massachusetts) one-hour ozone serious
nonattainment area (hereafter, ``the Western Massachusetts area'').

A. Proposed Determination of Failure To Attain by Applicable Attainment
Date

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Western Massachusetts area
did not attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date, December 31, 2003. This proposed determination is based upon
complete, quality-assured and certified air quality monitoring data for
the 2001-2003 monitoring period.

B. Proposed Determination of Current Attainment

    In addition, EPA is proposing to determine that the Western
Massachusetts area is currently attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS
based upon complete, quality-assured and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 monitoring periods. If
this proposed determination is finalized, any obligations related to
one-hour ozone contingency measures in the Western Massachusetts area
shall be suspended.

II. What is the background for these proposed actions?

A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    The Western Massachusetts one-hour ozone nonattainment area
consists of Berkshire, Franklin, Hampden and Hampshire Counties. EPA
designated this area as nonattainment for one-hour ozone following the
enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990. Most areas of
the country that EPA designated nonattainment for the one-hour ozone
NAAQS were classified by operation of law as marginal, moderate,
serious, severe, or extreme depending on the severity of the area's air
quality problem. See CAA sections 107(d)(1)(C) and 181(a). The Western
Massachusetts area was classified as serious. The one-hour ozone
attainment deadline for the Western Massachusetts serious area was
initially set for November 15, 1999, and later was extended to December
31, 2003. See 66 FR 666 (January 3, 2001).

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated a new standard for
ozone based on an 8-hour average concentration (the ``1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS''). EPA designated and classified most areas of the country under
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in an April 30, 2004 final rule. See 69 FR
23858. EPA designated Western Massachusetts as nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and at the time of designation the area did
not meet the one-hour ozone standard.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA issued a final rule (69 FR 23951) entitled
``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Phase 1,'' referred to as the Phase 1 Rule. Among other
matters, this rule revoked the one-hour ozone NAAQS in most areas of
the country, effective June 15, 2005. See 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at
23996; and 70 FR 44470. The Phase 1 Rule also set forth how anti-
backsliding principles will ensure continued progress toward attainment
of the eight-hour ozone NAAQS by identifying which one-hour
requirements remain applicable in an area after revocation of the one-
hour ozone NAAQS. Although, EPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard,
eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas remain subject to certain one-
hour, anti-backsliding requirements based on their one-hour ozone
classification. Initially, in our rules to address the transition from
the one-hour to the eight-hour ozone standard, EPA did not include one-
hour contingency measures among the measures retained as one-hour ozone
anti-backsliding requirements.\1\ However, on December 23, 2006, the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
determined that EPA should not have excluded these requirements (and
certain others not relevant here) from its anti-backsliding
requirements. See South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA,
472 F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006), rehearing denied 489 F.3d 1245 (clarifying
that the vacatur was limited to the issues on which the court granted
the petitions for review). Thus, the Court vacated the provisions that
excluded these requirements. As a result, States must continue to meet
the obligations for one-hour ozone NAAQS contingency measures and EPA
has issued a proposed rule that would remove the vacated provisions of
40 CFR 51.905(e), and that addresses contingency measures for the one-
hour standard. See 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 2009) (proposed rule); and
74 FR 7027 (February 12, 2009) (notice of public hearing and extension
of comment period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard--Phase 1, 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Basis and Effect of Proposed Determinations

    After revocation of the one-hour ozone standard, EPA must continue
to provide a mechanism to give effect to the one-hour ozone anti-
backsliding requirements. See SCAQMD v. EPA, 47 F.3d 882, at 903. In
keeping with this responsibility with respect to specific one-hour
anti-backsliding measures, such as contingency measures, EPA proposes
to determine that Western Massachusetts failed to attain the one-hour
ozone standard by its applicable attainment date. (CAA sections 301(a)
and 181(b)(2)). Consistent with 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2) and the South Coast
decision, upon revocation of the one-hour ozone NAAQS for an area, EPA
is no longer obligated to determine whether an area has attained the
one-hour NAAQS, except insofar as it relates to effectuating the anti-
backsliding requirements that are specifically retained. EPA's
determination here is linked solely to required one-hour anti-
backsliding contingency measures. A final determination of failure to
attain will not result in reclassification of the area under the
revoked one-hour standard, nor is EPA identifying or determining any
new one-hour reclassification for the area. EPA is no longer required
to reclassify an area to a higher classification for the one-hour ozone
NAAQS based upon a determination that the area failed to attain that
NAAQS by its attainment date. See 40 CFR 51.905(e)(2)(i)(B). Thus, even
if we finalize our proposed determination that the area failed to
attain the one-hour ozone NAAQS by its attainment deadline, the area
will not be reclassified to a higher classification. Moreover, EPA has
previously approved the attainment demonstration and Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) plans for this area, and in doing so noted that although
there were no approved state implementation plan contingency measures
applicable to the Western Massachusetts area for failure to attain,
there were federal measures which the state had not accounted for in
its attainment demonstration, and which provided more reductions than
necessary to serve the purpose of contingency measures for this area.
See 66 FR 666, January 3, 2001. In addition, as explained elsewhere in
this notice, EPA is proposing to determine that the Western
Massachusetts area is currently attaining the one-hour ozone standard.
The area has been in attainment of the revoked standard since 2009. In
this context, even if EPA's proposed determination that the area did
not attain the standard by the 2003 deadline is finalized, it will not
trigger any additional obligations for the area under the one-hour
ozone standard. Under EPA's ``Clean Data Policy'' interpretation, which
was first articulated for the one-hour standard and then codified for
the 8-hour ozone standard (40 CFR 51.918),\2\ a determination of
attainment suspends obligations for attainment-related requirements for
that standard, including contingency measures. See, for example,
determination of one-hour ozone attainment for Baton Rouge, 75 FR 6570
(February 10, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit upheld the provisions of 40 CFR 51.918, which codified the
Clean Data Policy. Previously Courts of Appeals for several other
Circuits upheld the Clean Data Policy under the one-hour standard.
See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (DC Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA,
99 F. 3d 1551 (10th Cir.1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th
Cir. 2004) and Our Children's EarthFoundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032
(9th Cir. June 28, 2005) (memorandum opinion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What are EPA's analyses of data for purposes of determining
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard?

A. How does EPA compute whether an area meets the one-hour ozone
standard?

    Although the one-hour ozone NAAQS as promulgated in 40 CFR 50.9
does not address specific data handling conventions, EPA's publicly
articulated position and the approach long since universally adopted by
the air quality management community is that the interpretation of the
one-hour ozone standard requires rounding ambient air quality data
consistent with the stated level of the standard, which is 0.12 parts
per million (ppm). 40 CFR 50.9(a) states that: ``The level of the
national one-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
for ozone * * * is 0.12 parts per million. * * * The standard is
attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with
maximum hourly average concentrations of 0.12 parts per million * * *
is equal to or less than 1, as determined by appendix H to this part.''
Thus, compliance with the NAAQS is based on comparison of air quality
concentrations with the standard and on how many days that standard has
been exceeded, adjusted for the number of missing days.
    For comparison with the NAAQS, EPA has clearly communicated the
data handling conventions for the one-hour ozone NAAQS in guidance
documents.

As early as 1979, EPA's guidance stated that the level of our NAAQS
dictates the number of significant figures to be used in determining
whether the standard was exceeded. The stated level of the standard
defines the number of significant figures to be used in comparisons
with the standard. For example, a standard level of 0.12 ppm means that
measurements are to be rounded to two decimal places (0.005 rounds up),
and, therefore, 0.125 ppm is the smallest concentration value in excess
of the level of the standard. See ``Guideline for the Interpretation of
Ozone Air Quality Standards,'' EPA-450/4-79-003, OAQPS No. 1.2-108,
January 1979. EPA has consistently applied the rounding convention in
this 1979 guideline. See 68 FR 19111, April 17, 2003; 68 FR 62043,
October 31, 2003; and 69 FR 21719, April 22, 2004. EPA determines
attainment status under the one-hour ozone NAAQS on the basis of the
annual average number of expected exceedances of the NAAQS over a
three-year period. See 60 FR 3349, January 17, 1995 and also the
``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990,'' at 57 FR 13506, April 16, 1992 (``General
Preamble''). EPA's determination is based upon data that have been
collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58, and
recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. To account for
missing data, the procedures found in appendix H to 40 CFR 50 are used
to adjust the actual number of monitored exceedances of the standard to
yield the annual number of expected exceedances (``expected exceedance
days'') at an air quality monitoring site. We determine if an area
meets the one-hour ozone NAAQS by calculating, at each monitor, the
average expected number of days over the standard per year (i.e.,
``average number of expected exceedance days'') during the applicable
3-year period. See the General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992.
The term ``exceedance'' is used throughout this document to describe a
daily maximum ozone measurement that is equal to or exceeds 0.125 ppm
which is the level of the one-hour standard after rounding. An area
violates the ozone standard if, over a consecutive 3-year period, more
than 3 days of expected exceedances occur at the same monitor. For more
information please refer to 40 CFR 50.9, ``National one-hour primary
and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone'' and
``Interpretation of the one-hour Primary and Secondary National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Ozone'' (40 CFR part 50, appendix H).

B. EPA's Analyses of the One-Hour Ozone Data for the Springfield
(Western Massachusetts) Area

    Tables 1, 2 and 3 show one-hour ozone data for the Western
Massachusetts area, for each of the three-year periods 2001-2003, 2007-
2009, and 2008-2010. The tables show the actual exceedance days, the
expected exceedance days, and the 3-year average expected exceedance
rate for each monitor in the Western Massachusetts area. The standard
for the one-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.12 ppm and attainment is achieved
when the number of expected exceedances is 1.0 or less averaged over a
three-year period. EPA calculates the expected exceedances based on the
number of times a site exceeds the 0.12 ppm standard averaged over a
three-year period and then adjusts for missing data. In short, if the
three-year average expected exceedances rate is less than or equal to
1.0, the site meets the one-hour ozone NAAQS. If all sites in the area
meet the one-hour ozone standard, then the area meets the one-hour
NAAQS during that time period.

                                             Table 1--One-Hour Ozone Data for the Western Massachusetts Area
                                                                       [2001-2003]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Actual                          3-Year average
                  EPA AQS ID                                  Site                      Year         exceedance days      Expected          expected
                                                                                over 0.124 ppm    exceedance days   exceedance rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250034002.....................................  Adams...........................              2001                 0               0.0               0.0
                                                                                2002                 0               0.0  ................
                                                                                2003                 0               0.0  ................
250130003.....................................  Agawam \3\......................              2001                 0               0.0  ................
                                                                                2002                 2               2.0  ................
                                                                                2003  ................  ................  ................
250130008.....................................  Chicopee........................              2001                 2               2.0               2.0
                                                                                2002                 4               4.0  ................
                                                                                2003                 0               0.0  ................
250150103.....................................  N. Amherst......................              2001                 1               1.0               0.7
                                                                                2002                 1               1.0  ................
                                                                                2003                 0               0.0  ................
250154002.....................................  Ware............................              2001                 2               2.0               1.3
                                                                                2002                 2               2.0  ................
                                                                                2003                 0               0.0  ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \3\ Site shutdown in 2002. No expected exceedance rate
calculated for 2001-2003.

                                             Table 2--One-Hour Ozone Data for the Western Massachusetts Area
                                                                       [2007-2009]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Actual                          3-Year average
                  EPA AQS ID                                  Site                      Year         exceedance days      Expected          expected
                                                                                over 0.124 ppm    exceedance days   exceedance rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250034002.....................................  Adams...........................              2007                 0               0.0               0.0

                                                                                2008                 0               0.0  ................
                                                                                2009                 0               0.0  ................
250130008.....................................  Chicopee........................              2007                 3               3.0               1.0
                                                                                2008                 0               0.0  ................
                                                                                2009                 0               0.0  ................
250150103.....................................  N. Amherst......................              2007                 0               0.0               0.0
                                                                                2008                 0               0.0  ................
                                                                                2009                 0               0.0  ................
250154002.....................................  Ware............................              2007                 2               2.1               0.7
                                                                                2008                 0               0.0  ................
                                                                                2009                 0               0.0  ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                             Table 3--One-Hour Ozone Data for the Western Massachusetts Area
                                                                       [2008-2010]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Actual                          3-Year average
                  EPA AQS ID                                  Site                      Year         exceedance days      Expected          expected
                                                                                over 0.124 ppm    exceedance days   exceedance rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250034002.....................................  Adams...........................              2008                 0               0.0               0.0
                                                                                2009                 0               0.0  ................
                                                                                2010                 0               0.0  ................
250130008.....................................  Chicopee........................              2008                 0               0.0               0.0
                                                                                2009                 0               0.0  ................
                                                                                2010                 0               0.0  ................
250150103.....................................  N. Amherst......................              2008                 0               0.0               0.0
                                                                                2009                 0               0.0  ................
                                                                                2010                 0               0.0  ................
250154002.....................................  Ware............................              2008                 0               0.0               0.0
                                                                                2009                 0               0.0  ................
                                                                                2010                 0               0.0  ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed and evaluated these data in order to make two
separate proposed determinations. First, EPA addresses whether the
Western Massachusetts area attained the one-hour ozone standard by the
applicable attainment date. As shown in Table 1, the Western
Massachusetts one-hour ozone nonattainment area did not meet its
attainment deadline of December 31, 2003, since two ozone monitors in
the area had expected exceedance rates above 1.0. However, as Table 2
shows, the area subsequently attained the one-hour ozone standard based
on 2007-2009 ozone data, and the area continues to meet the one-hour
standard based on complete, quality- assured and certified data for
2008-2010 (Table 3). Preliminary ozone data available for 2011 show
that the area continues in attainment of the one-hour ozone standard.
Thus, EPA is also proposing to determine that based on complete,
quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data, the Western
Massachusetts area has attained and continues to attain the one-hour
ozone NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Determinations

    For the reasons set forth in this notice, EPA is proposing to
determine that the Western Massachusetts one-hour ozone nonattainment
area did not meet its applicable one-hour ozone attainment date of
December 31, 2003, based on complete, quality-assured and certified
ozone monitoring data for 2001-2003.\4\ Separate from and independent
of this proposed determination, EPA is also proposing to determine that
the Western Massachusetts one-hour ozone nonattainment area is
currently attaining the one-hour ozone standard, based on, complete,
quality-assured and certified ozone monitoring data for the 2007-2009
and 2008-2010 monitoring periods. Preliminary data available for 2011
indicate that the area continues to attain the one-hour NAAQS. If EPA
finalizes its proposed determination that the Western Massachusetts
area is currently attaining the one-hour ozone standard, any obligation
to submit contingency measures for the one-hour ozone standard shall be
suspended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the reasons set forth above, a final determination that
the Western Massachusetts one-hour ozone nonattainment area did not
meet its applicable one-hour ozone attainment deadline will not
result in reclassification of the area for the one-hour standard,
nor in any additional air quality obligations for the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking process by submitting written comments to the EPA
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    These actions propose to make determinations of attainment or
nonattainment based on monitored air quality data and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by statute or regulation.
For that reason, these proposed actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, these actions do not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 11, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2012-1356 Filed 1-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="22/05/2008 12:52:15 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28783-28785]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10037]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2021-0393; FRL-9756-01-R10]

Air Plan Approval; OR; Vehicle Inspection Program and Medford-
Ashland PM10 Maintenance Plan Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the Oregon state implementation plan (SIP)
submitted by the State of Oregon (Oregon) on December 9, 2020 and
December 22, 2021. The revisions update the SIP-approved vehicle
inspection program for the Portland and Medford areas. The EPA is
proposing to approve the SIP submittal as consistent with Clean Air Act
(Act or CAA) requirements. Additionally, EPA is proposing to make a
technical correction to the Medford-Ashland particulate matter
(PM10) maintenance plan that incorrectly identified a
street-sweeping commitment as a transportation control measure (TCM).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2021-0393, at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from https://www.regulations.gov. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not electronically submit
any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to EPA.

I. Background for This Action

    Section 110 of the CAA requires states to develop and submit to the
EPA SIPs to ensure that state air quality meets National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). Each federally approved SIP protects air
quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin
through air pollution regulations and control strategies. The EPA-
approved SIP provisions and control strategies are federally
enforceable. States revise the SIP as needed and submit revisions to
the EPA for review and approval.

II. The State's Submittal

    On December 9, 2020 and December 22, 2021, Oregon submitted a SIP
revision for the vehicle inspection program (VIP) in the Portland and
Medford areas. Table 1 of this document lists the rule revisions
included in the scope of the state's submissions. The SIP revision
updates the rules to improve clarity, add requirements for the onboard
diagnostics system, and remove references to the enhanced dynamometer
test that is no longer required as of January 1, 2007.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA approved phasing out the enhanced test on December 19,
2011. (See 76 FR 78571).

     Table 1--Rule Revisions Included in Oregon's VIP SIP Submission
                      [Effective November 19, 2020]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Rule No. OAR 340-                       Rule title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
256-0010................................  Definitions.
256-0130................................  Visible Emissions: Motor
                                           Vehicle Fleet Operation.
256-0200................................  Certification of Pollution
                                           Control Systems: County
                                           Designations.
256-0300................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Scope.
256-0310................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Government-Owned
                                           Vehicle, Permanent Fleet
                                           Vehicle and United States
                                           Government Vehicle Testing
                                           Requirements.

256-0330................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Department of
                                           Defense Personnel
                                           Participating in the
                                           Privately Owned Vehicle
                                           Import Control Program.
256-0340................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Light Duty Motor
                                           Vehicle and Heavy Duty
                                           Gasoline Motor Vehicle
                                           Emission Control Test Method
                                           for Basic Program.
256-0350 (repeal).......................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Light Duty Motor
                                           Vehicle Emission Control Test
                                           Method for Enhanced Program.
256-0355................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Emissions Control
                                           Test Method for OBD Test
                                           Program.
256-0356................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Emissions Control
                                           Test Method for On-Site
                                           Vehicle Testing for
                                           Automobile Dealerships.
256-0370................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Renewal of
                                           Registration for Light Duty
                                           Motor Vehicles and Heavy Duty
                                           Gasoline Motor Vehicles
                                           Temporarily Operating Outside
                                           of Oregon.
256-0380................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Light Duty Motor
                                           Vehicle Emission Control Test
                                           Criteria for Basic Program.
256-0390................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Heavy Duty
                                           Gasoline Motor Vehicle
                                           Emission Control Test
                                           Criteria.
256-0400................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Light Duty Motor
                                           Vehicle Emission Control
                                           Standards for Basic Program.
256-0410 (repeal).......................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Light Duty Motor
                                           Vehicle Emission Control
                                           Standards for Enhanced
                                           Program.
256-0420................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Heavy-Duty
                                           Gasoline Motor Vehicle
                                           Emission Control Standards.
256-0440................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Criteria for
                                           Qualifications of Persons
                                           Eligible to Inspect Motor
                                           Vehicles and Motor Vehicle
                                           Pollution Control Systems and
                                           Execute Certificates.
256-0450................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Gas Analytical
                                           System Licensing Criteria for
                                           Basic Program.
256-0460 (repeal).......................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Gas Analytical
                                           System Licensing Criteria for
                                           Enhanced Program.
256-0465................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Test Equipment
                                           Licensing Criteria for OBD
                                           Test Program.
256-0470................................  Emission Control System
                                           Inspection: Agreement With
                                           Independent Contractor;
                                           Qualifications of Contractor;
                                           Agreement Provisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Evaluation

VIP Rule Revisions

    Oregon's submission amends language in the VIP definitions (OAR
340-256-0010) to improve clarity, including removing definitions that
are no longer needed (crankcase emissions, electric vehicle, enhanced
test, GPM, Medford-Ashland Air Quality Maintenance Area (AQMA),
motorcycle, noise level, oxides of nitrogen, Portland Vehicle
Inspection Area, propulsion exhaust noise, two-stroke cycle engine) and
adding new definitions (emissions franchised, HC, imported vehicle,
permanent fleet vehicle, vehicle identification number). The submission
also provides clarifying language in the provision for visible
emissions of motor vehicle fleet operation (OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>), the
certification of pollution control systems (OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>), and
several provisions for the emission control system inspection (OAR 340-
256-0300, -0310, -0330, -0356, -0370, -0380, -0390, -0450, -0465, -
0470).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In a December 22, 2021 letter to EPA (supplemental
submission), Oregon requested that OAR<PHONE_NUMBER> be deleted from
the scope of the December 9, 2020 submission. DEQ intends to re-
submit that provision in a future SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to improving clarity in the emission control system
inspection scope (OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>), the submission removes references
to the enhanced dynamometer test and adds requirements for the onboard
diagnostics system (OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>, -0355, -0400, -0420, -0440). EPA
approved phasing out Oregon's enhanced dynamometer test on December 19,
2011 (76 FR 78571). The action proposed will update the regulations in
the federally approved SIP to be consistent with EPA's 2011 approval of
the phase out of specified VIP requirements.
    Oregon's submission also repealed three emission control system
inspection provisions that were approved into the SIP (OAR-340-256-
0350, -0410, -0460). These provisions provided requirements for the
enhanced test program that was no longer required as of January 1,
2007.

Medford-Ashland Technical Correction

    EPA is proposing to make a technical correction concerning the
naming convention of a Jackson County street sweeping commitment for
the Oregon, Medford-Ashland maintenance area. The street sweeping
commitment was included in the Medford-Ashland Particulate Matter
(PM10) Maintenance Plan (Medford-Ashland SIP) adopted by the
Oregon Environmental Quality Commission on December 10, 2004 and
submitted to EPA on March 10, 2005. Oregon incorrectly identified the
street sweeping commitment in the Medford-Ashland SIP as a
``Transportation Control Measure'' (TCM) and on June 19, 2006, EPA took
a direct final action to approve the Medford-Ashland SIP including the
street sweeping commitment as a TCM (71 FR 35163). EPA erred in
describing the street sweeping commitment as a TCM.
    A TCM is defined at 40 CFR 93.101 as ``any measure that is
specifically identified and committed to in the applicable
implementation plan . . . that is either one of the types listed in CAA
section 108, or any other measure for the purpose of reducing emissions
or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by
reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion
conditions.'' Although the street sweeping commitment was included in
the Medford-Ashland SIP, it clearly does not meet the regulatory
definition of a TCM because road cleaning measures do not reduce
vehicle use or change traffic flow or congestion conditions nor is it
one of the types of TCMs listed in CAA section 108.
    Because the street sweeping commitment was erroneously identified
as a TCM, the EPA proposes to correct the nomenclature used to describe
the measure and clarify that the street sweeping commitment in the
Medford-Ashland SIP is not a TCM, within the meaning of 40 CFR 93.101,
upon final action on this proposal. The EPA notes that the Medford-
Ashland SIP was never required to include TCMs because former
PM10 non-attainment areas are not required to include TCMs.
This action, thus, clarifies that Oregon is not obliged to treat the
street sweeping commitment in its SIP as a TCM.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted by Oregon on
December 9, 2020 and December 22, 2021. EPA is also proposing to
correct the nomenclature in the Medford-Ashland PM10
maintenance plan used to

describe the street sweeping control measure as a TCM.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final rule,
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the provisions described in Section III of this preamble.
Also, in this document, the EPA is proposing to remove, in a final EPA
rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to remove
the incorporation by reference of OAR-340-256-0350, -0410, -0460 as
described in Section III of this preamble. EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: May 4, 2022.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2022-10037 Filed 5-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12022-12023]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05070]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final Notice.

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

SUMMARY: New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood
Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways
(hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on
the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities
listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance
Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to
calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their
contents.

DATES: The effective date for each LOMR is indicated in the table
below.

ADDRESSES: Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the
LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these
modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers
of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication.
The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to
section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of
1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the
floodplain management measures that the community is required either to
adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
    This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet
the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to
calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in
flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the final flood hazard information available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: February 11, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Chief executive                                                                 Community
         State and county           Location and case No.  officer of community   Community map repository  Effective date of  modification      No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland:
    Worcester (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Town of Ocean City     The Honorable         Planning and Zoning        December 26, 2014..............       245207
     1444).                          (14-03-1372P).         Richard W. Meehan,    Division, 301 North
                                                            Mayor, Town of        Baltimore Avenue, Ocean
                                                            Ocean City, P.O.      City, MD 21842.
                                                            Box 158, Ocean
                                                            City, MD 21843.
    Worcester (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Town of Ocean City     The Honorable         Planning and Zoning        December 26, 2014..............       245207
     1444).                          (14-03-1373P).         Richard W. Meehan,    Division, 301 North
                                                            Mayor, Town of        Baltimore Avenue, Ocean
                                                            Ocean City, P.O.      City, MD 21842.
                                                            Box 158, Ocean
                                                            City, MD 21843.

    Worcester (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Town of Ocean City     The Honorable         Planning and Zoning        December 26, 2014..............       245207
     1444).                          (14-03-1375P).         Richard W. Meehan,    Division, 301 North
                                                            Mayor, Town of        Baltimore Avenue, Ocean
                                                            Ocean City, P.O.      City, MD 21842.
                                                            Box 158, Ocean
                                                            City, MD 21843.
New Mexico:
    Bernalillo (FEMA Docket No.: B- City of Albuquerque    The Honorable         Development and Review     January 2, 2015................       350002
     1444).                          (14-06-0305P).         Richard J. Berry,     Services Division, 600
                                                            Mayor, City of        2nd Street Northwest,
                                                            Albuquerque, P.O.     Suite 201, Albuquerque,
                                                            Box 1293,             NM 87102.
                                                            Albuquerque, NM
                                                            87103.
    Bernalillo (FEMA Docket No.: B- Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Debbie  Bernalillo County Public   December 26, 2014..............       350001
     1444).                          of Bernalillo County   O'Malley, Chairman,   Works Division, 2400
                                     (14-06-0097P).         Bernalillo County     Broadway Boulevard
                                                            Board of              Southeast, Albuquerque,
                                                            Commissioners, 1      NM 87102.
                                                            Civic Plaza
                                                            Northwest,
                                                            Albuquerque, NM
                                                            87102.
Texas:
    Burnet (FEMA Docket No.: B-     City of Horseshoe Bay  The Honorable Steve   City Hall, 1 Community     November 26, 2014..............       480149
     1432).                          (14-06-4634P           Jordon, Mayor, City   Drive, Horseshoe Bay, TX
                                     [reissued 13-06-       of Horseshoe Bay,     78657.
                                     4634P]).               P.O. Box 7765,
                                                            Horseshoe Bay, TX
                                                            78657.
    Dallas (FEMA Docket No.: B-     City of Farmers        The Honorable Bob     City Hall, 13000 William   January 2, 2015................       480174
     1444).                          Branch (14-06-0555P).  Phelps, Mayor, City   Dodson Parkway, Farmers
                                                            of Farmers Branch,    Branch, TX 75234.
                                                            13000 William
                                                            Dodson Parkway,
                                                            Farmers Branch, TX
                                                            75234.
    Dallas (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Town of Addison (14-   The Honorable Todd    Public Works Department,   January 2, 2015................       481089
     1444).                          06-0555P).             Meier, Mayor, Town    16801 Westgrove Drive,
                                                            of Addison, P.O.      Addison, TX 75001.
                                                            Box 9010, Addison,
                                                            TX 75001.
    El Paso (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of El Paso (14-   The Honorable Oscar   Land Development, 801      November 28, 2014..............       480214
     1437).                          06-0412P).             Leeser, Mayor, City   Texas Avenue, El Paso,
                                                            of El Paso, 300       TX 79901.
                                                            North Campbell
                                                            Street, El Paso, TX
                                                            79901.
    El Paso (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of El Paso (14-   The Honorable Oscar   Land Development, 801      October 27, 2014...............       480214
     1432).                          06-2375P).             Leeser, Mayor, City   Texas Avenue, El Paso,
                                                            of El Paso, 300       TX 79901.
                                                            North Campbell
                                                            Street, El Paso, TX
                                                            79901.
    El Paso (FEMA Docket No.: B-    Unincorporated areas   The Honorable         El Paso County Public      December 12, 2014..............       480212
     1441).                          of El Paso County      Veronica Escobar,     Works Department, 800
                                     (14-06-1602P).         El Paso County        East Overland Avenue,
                                                            Judge, 500 East San   Suite 407, El Paso, TX
                                                            Antonio Avenue,       79901.
                                                            Suite 301, El Paso,
                                                            TX 79901.
    Galveston (FEMA Docket No.: B-  City of League City    The Honorable         Planning Department, 1535  December 26, 2014..............       485488
     1444).                          (13-06-3403P).         Timothy Paulissen,    Dickinson Avenue, League
                                                            Mayor, City of        City, TX 77573.
                                                            League City, 300
                                                            West Walker Street,
                                                            League City, TX
                                                            77573.
    Harris (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Ed M.   Harris County Permits      December 26, 2014..............       480287
     1444).                          of Harris County (14-  Emmett, Harris        Office, 10555 Northwest
                                     06-3038P).             County Judge, 1001    Freeway, Suite 120,
                                                            Preston Street,       Houston, TX 77092.
                                                            Suite 911, Houston,
                                                            TX 77002.
    Llano (FEMA Docket No.: B-      Unincorporated areas   The Honorable Wayne   Llano County Courthouse,   November 26, 2014..............       481234
     1432).                          of Llano County (14-   Brascom, Llano        801 Ford Street, Llano,
                                     06-4634P [reissued     County Judge, 801     TX 78643.
                                     13-06-4634P]).         Ford Street, Room
                                                            101, Llano, TX
                                                            78643.
    Tarrant (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of Hurst (14-06-  The Honorable         Public Works               December 29, 2014..............       480601
     1444).                          1807P).                Richard Ward,         Administration Office,
                                                            Mayor, City of        1505 Precinct Line Road,
                                                            Hurst, 1505           Hurst, TX 76054.
                                                            Precinct Line Road,
                                                            Hurst, TX 76054.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-05070 Filed 3-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: July 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 38871]
[DOCID:fr10jy06-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER06-1071-000]

Kuehne Chemical Company, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 30, 2006.
    Kuehne Chemical Company, Inc. (Kuehne) filed an application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying tariff. The proposed
market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and capacity
at market-based rates. Kuehne also requested waivers of various
Commission regulations. In particular, Kuehne requested that the
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Kuehne.
    On June 27, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director,
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests
for blanket approval under part 34. The Director's order also stated
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests.
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket
approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by
Kuehne should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to
intervene or protest is July 27, 2006.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above,
Kuehne is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of
Kuehne, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by
continued approvals of Kuehne's issuances of securities or assumptions
of liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the

docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-10691 Filed 7-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 57554-57555]
[DOCID:fr10oc07-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12853-000]

FFP Project 12, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

October 2, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12853-000.
    c. Date filed: July 25, 2007.
    d. Applicant: FFP Project 12, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: St. Rose Bend Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Mississippi River
in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. The project uses no dam or
impoundment.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Project 12, LLC, 69 Bridge
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12853-000) on any comments or motions filed.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of: (1)
1,350 proposed 20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 27 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line,
and (3) appurtenant facilities. The FFP Project 12, LLC, project would
have an average annual generation of 118.26 gigawatt-hours and be sold
to a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``COMPETING
APPLICATION'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'',
``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project
Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of
the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and
the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-19898 Filed 10-9-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P