### 55832 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Notices

2 Western’s authority to issue a ROD is pursuant to authority delegated on November 16, 2011, from
DOE’s Office of the General Counsel. network in and north of Chavez Pass.
The RPMs included in the water
resources section of the Final EIS would apply to the ditch network and wells in the wind park study area. With these measures, no permanent effects to the ditch network are expected.

The property owner noted that KOP 5
is located about 1.5 miles from his property, and commented that the Scenery Integrity Level would change from high to low, which the commenter maintained would be unacceptable on
Forest Service lands. The Final EIS includes photo simulations from a key observation point (KOP No. 5) located near State Highway 87 southeast of the wind park study area near the owner’s parcel. No project facilities would be
visible from KOP 5 located near the property owner’s parcel for the initial development phase. Based on an
evaluation in the Final EIS of the views from KOP 5, views of the San Francisco Peaks would be partially blocked by
some of the closest WTGs for the subsequent build-out phases. The Final EIS also indicates that the subsequent build-out phases for the proposed wind park would create a high visual contrast from this viewpoint. However, the
nearest WTG would be located more than one mile from the property owner’s parcel in accordance with current County goals and policies. In addition,
the views evaluated from KOP 5 areprimarily outside of the Forest Servicedefined management objectives. The
commenter’s concerns related to visual impacts do not present any significant
new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns.

In response to the property owner’s information on land ownership at KOP 4, the property owner is correct that
KOP 4 is located on Forest Servicemanaged lands. The photo simulation from KOP 4 simulates the proposed wind park as it would be seen from a point along Chavez Pass Road. WTGs are depicted at a height of approximately 430 feet, and a distance of approximately 1.7 miles from the road. As such, they are located within middleground views. The KOP represents a view into the proposed wind park, which is not located on Forest Service-managed lands and is
therefore outside of the Forest Servicedefined management objectives for
scenic resources. The Final EIS noted that the proposed wind park would result in visual contrast that ranges from low to high on private and state lands. Therefore, the location of the KOP on Forest Service managed land, versus state or private lands, do not present any significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental

concerns.

The property owner expressed concerns that the views from KOP 6, west of the proposed wind park and near the transmission tie-line routing, would result in a significant, drastic change to a beautiful viewshed. This
KOP is located on Forest Service Road 125, along the eastern edge of Anderson Mesa, looking to the east. The Final EIS notes that the proposed wind park and
transmission tie-line would introduce elements of form, line, scale, and color
that would contrast with the otherwise natural valley floor. Therefore, the concerns expressed by the property owner do not present any significant
new circumstances or information
relevant to environmental concerns.

The property owner noted that the EIS does not discuss Forest Service opinions of landscape changes on non-Forest
Service land visible from Forest Servicemanaged lands. The purpose of the EIS is to disclose the environmental impacts from the proposed Project, not to provide Western or Forest Service opinions regarding developments on private land. For the reasons stated
above in the discussion of visual impacts from KOPs 4, 5, and 6, the Final EIS adequately addresses the effects of views from Forest Service-managed lands towards the wind park development.

Western does not have any jurisdiction over the siting of WTGs, but the owner of the parcel will have opportunities to provide additional input during the approval process for
the General Use Permit that would be issued by Coconino County for the Project.

Decision

Western’s decision is to allow Foresight’s request for interconnection to Western’s transmission system at its Glen Canyon-Pinnacle Peak No. 1 and No. 2 transmission lines, and to construct, own, and operate a new switchyard. 2 Western’s decision to grant this interconnection request satisfies the agency’s statutory mission and Foresight’s objectives while minimizing
harm to the environment. Full implementation of this decision is contingent upon Foresight obtaining all other applicable permits and approvals as well as executing an interconnection agreement in accordance with Western’s
Tariff.

This decision is based on the information contained in the Grapevine Canyon Wind Project Final EIS and
comments received on the Final EIS. This ROD was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500–1508) and DOE’s Procedures for Implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 1021).

Dated: August 28, 2012.
Anita J. Decker, Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2012–22316 Filed 9–10–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6450–01–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**[FRL–9726–9]**

**Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods: Designation of a**  **New Equivalent Method**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Notice of the designation of a new equivalent method for monitoring ambient air quality.

**SUMMARY :**  Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated, in accordance with 40 CFR part 53, a new equivalent method for measuring concentrations of

PM 2.5 in the ambient air.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Robert Vanderpool, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD–D205–03), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. Email: Vanderpool.Robert@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  In accordance with regulations at 40 CFR part 53, the EPA evaluates various methods for monitoring the
concentrations of those ambient air pollutants for which EPA has
established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) as set forth in 40 CFR part 50. Monitoring
methods that are determined to meet specific requirements for adequacy are designated by the EPA as either reference methods or equivalent methods (as applicable), thereby permitting their use under 40 CFR part 58 by States and other agencies for determining compliance with the NAAQSs.

The EPA hereby announces the designation of a new equivalent method for measuring pollutant concentrations
of PM 2.5 in the ambient air. This designation is made under the provisions of 40 CFR part 53, as


### 55833 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 11, 2012 / Notices

amended on August 31, 2011 (76 FR 54326–54341).

The new equivalent method for PM 2.5 is an automated monitoring method utilizing a measurement principle based on sample collection by filtration and analysis by beta-ray attenuation. The newly designated equivalent method is
identified as follows:

EQPM–0812–203, ‘‘OPSIS SM200- Dust Monitor’’ configured for PM 2.5 with
the US EPA PM 10 inlet specified in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix L, followed by a BGI Inc. Very Sharp Cut Cyclone (VSCC TM) particle size separator, operated for a 24-hour continuous sample period at a total actual flow rate of 16.67 L/min. using 47mm PTFE membrane filters, a TS200 temperature
stabilizer and software version 1.04.16 or later, in accordance with the OPSIS SM200 Dust Monitor Operation and
Instruction Guide.’’

The application for equivalent
method determination for the PM 2.5 method was received by the Office of Research and Development on June 21, 2011. This monitor is commercially available from the applicant OPSIS Inc., 150 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1950, Chicago, IL 60601.

Test monitors representative of this
method have been tested in accordance with the applicable test procedures specified in 40 CFR part 53, as amended on August 31, 2011. After reviewing the
results of those tests and other
information submitted in the application, EPA has determined, in accordance with Part 53, that this method should be designated as an equivalent method. The information in the application will be kept on file, either at EPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 or in an approved archive storage facility, and will be available for inspection (with advance notice) to the extent consistent with 40 CFR part 2 (EPA’s regulations implementing the Freedom of Information Act).

As a designated equivalent method, this method is acceptable for use by states and other air monitoring agencies under the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Ambient Air Quality Surveillance. For such purposes, the method must be
used in strict accordance with the operation or instruction manual associated with the method and subject to any specifications and limitations (e.g., configuration or operational settings) specified in the applicable designated method description (see the identification of the method above).

Use of the method also should be in general accordance with the guidance and recommendations of applicable sections of the ‘‘Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume I,’’ EPA/ 600/R–94/038a and ‘‘Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Program’’ EPA–454/B–08–003, December, 2008. Provisions concerning modification of such methods by users are specified under Section 2.8 (Modifications of Methods by Users) of Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58.

Consistent or repeated noncompliance should be reported to: Director, Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences Division (MD–E205–01), National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711.

Designation of this new equivalent
method is intended to assist the States in establishing and operating their air quality surveillance systems under 40 CFR part 58. Questions concerning the commercial availability or technical aspects of the method should be directed to the applicant.

Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory.

[FR Doc. 2012–22343 Filed 9–10–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**
**AGENCY**

**[EPA–HQ–OW–2012–0035; FRL–9726–8]**

**Announcement of Public Meeting on the Consumer Confidence Report**  **(CCR) Rule Retrospective Review and Request for Public Comment on**  **Potential Approaches to Electronic Delivery of the CCR** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice of a public meeting and request for public comments.

**SUMMARY :**  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be holding a public meeting on October 1, 2012, to
listen to stakeholder comments on potential approaches for providing Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR) via electronic delivery. EPA plans to discuss its analysis of electronic delivery and present potential approaches and considerations for stakeholders to evaluate when pursuing electronic delivery of CCRs. EPA invites the public to participate in this listening session. EPA has posted the draft CCR Electronic Delivery Approaches document for public comment on its Web site at http://water.epa.gov/ lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ccr/. The instructions for registration for the meeting are located in the

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION** section of
this notice.

**DATES :**  The listening session will be held on October 1, 2012, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time. The 30-day public comment period starts September 11, 2012 and will end on October 11, 2012.

**ADDRESSES :**  The meeting will be held at the EPA’s Potomac Yards North (Bldg. 2), 2733 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, and will be open to the public.

How to Access Information: Meeting materials, including the draft CCR Electronic Delivery Approaches document, will be emailed to registrants or they can be accessed through EPA Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2012–0035
and EPA’s Web site at http://water.epa. gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/ccr/; background information (including the CCR and Public Notification Rules) is
available in this docket. Comments received on the ‘‘Preliminary Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations’’ are available for viewing in EPA’s Docket No. EPA–HQ– OA–2011–0154. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.

gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566–2426.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Adrienne Harris, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC4606M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460 at (202) 250–8793 or harris. adrienne@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Public Meeting Registration

Individuals planning on participating in the public meeting must register for the meeting at https://www. horsleywitten.com/ccrretroreview. Registration for this meeting will end on September 26, 2012, or earlier if the meeting room capacity is reached. If there is additional space, on-siteregistration will be allowed on a firstcome, first-served basis.