UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 July 16, 2003 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Comments on Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Pathway Guidance FROM: Keith Takata, Director Superfund Division, Region 9 Amy Zimpfer, Acting Director Waste Management Division, Region 9 TO: Marianne Lamont Horinko, Assistant Administrator Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the OSWER draft guidance on subsurface vapor intrusion [" Draft Guidance For Evaluating The Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway From Groundwater And Soils" ( Docket ID No. RCRA 2002 0033)]. I apologize for our very late comments.

We understand that the draft guidance was designed to be a tool to help determine if the vapor intrusion exposure pathway is complete and if it poses a potential significant threat to human health. We believe that the draft guidance is largely successful in this regard. In general, the document is well organized and presents a tiered screening approach that is both objective and appropriate.

We have, however, identified three significant One Cleanup Program issues that should be considered in the final document. We also would direct your attention to the February 27, 2003 comment letter from the EPA Regional Risk Assessors group which incorporates much of the specific input from our Region 9 toxicologists.

1. OSHA Standards in RCRA v. Risk Assessment The discussion of OSHA workplace standards and the application of the guidance to " occupational" settings in Section D( 1) of the draft guidance needs to be clarified. The draft suggests that OSHA standards should apply to all occupational settings, even in office buildings where chemicals are not routinely handled. In the RCRA program, the OSHA standards are used in making interim RCRA Environmental Indicator ( EI) determinations that current human exposures, due to the vapor intrusion pathway, are under control. It is our understanding that the OSHA standards are intended for use only to make EI determinations, which are interim determinations and may not reflect the final cleanup status of a site. We are concerned that applying OSHA standards to our sites as cleanup standards is inconsistent with accepted program guidance as adopted in the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund ( RAGS). This is primarily due to the fact that although both OSHA standards and the Superfund risk assessment approach protect the health of workers exposed to toxic substances, the conditions of exposure for each set of values differ significantly [ see the discussion of this issue in the Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites, Peer Review Draft, OSWER 9355.4 24, March 2001, p. 4 31] . At both RCRA corrective action and Superfund sites, site specific conditions will be evaluated to determine a final cleanup goal.

The problem with applying OSHA standards versus a risk based approach to site contamination is emphasized when RCRA and CERCLA sites are located in the same community such as the MEW ( Superfund) and GTE ( RCRA) sites here in California. As written, the draft guidance would suggest that EPA use different approaches and/ or screening levels at each of these sites which are directly adjacent to each other, concern the same contaminants, and share the same concerned community. It would be difficult to justify different approaches to community members and local government officials.

On a separate, but related issue, the draft Vapor Intrusion and RCRA Corrective Action ( CA) Environmental Indicators ( EI) Fact Sheet ( 6/ 17/ 03) indicates that OSHA standards should be used in making EI determinations at occupational settings and if a site passes this screen, then confirmatory sampling will not be necessary for purposes of making an EI determination. This fact sheet will likely confuse Potentially Responsible Parties at Superfund sites and communities because it does not explain the difference between an EI determination and a risk based cleanup decision. There needs to be clarification that the OSHA standards are intended for use in making interim RCRA EI determinations at occupational settings and not always as the final cleanup standard for a site.

2. 10 5 Goal for Carcinogens v. Full Risk Range We believe that the full cancer risk range should be considered even during the screening process. The draft guidance [ Section IV. C] recommends that EPA use an incremental individual lifetime cancer risk of 10 5 for EI determinations with respect to vapor intrusion under RCRA and CERCLA. We would ask that program management decisions be made using the full 10 4 to 10 6 range as is typical in our programs. Such an approach provides necessary flexibility in our decision making and is consistent with the approach we commonly use at our sites.

3. Positive Pressure in Buildings v. Permanent Remedies The draft guidance implies that if a building ( particularly a commercial space) is under positive pressure [ Section IV. G], no further action needs to be taken to determine whether the vapor intrusion pathway is complete. We have found in our own site specific evaluations that this assumption can pose problems. Many issues complicate the evaluation of the presence of positive pressure, including the fact that ventilation systems are typically shut down at night and on weekends. Also, we understand that rooms which tend to be primary entry points for utilities, electrical conduits or floor drains ( potential vapor intrusion paths) can be under negative pressure, even in those buildings with overall average positive pressure. Additionally, the proper assessment of plans and specifications of ventilation systems in potentially impacted buildings would require a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ( HVAC) consultant. Relying only on the presence of positive pressure to determine whether there is a complete pathway raises concerns about our preference for remedy permanence and the implementation and effectiveness of institutional controls.

In closing, Region 9 has evaluated the vapor intrusion pathway at a number of Superfund and RCRA sites over the past decade. As such, we have developed experience in scoping and implementing indoor air sampling. We look forward to working with you ensure that the final guidance provides the best information available to address this important issue.

If you have any questions, please call me or have your staff contact Elizabeth Adams at 415 972 3183.

cc: Mike Cook Bob Springer


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76998-77001]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1089]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On May 25, 2010, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides
corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information
published at 75 FR 29219. The table provided here represents the
flooding sources, location of referenced elevations, effective and
modified elevations, and communities affected for Butler County,
Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it addresses the
following flooding sources: Barren River (backwater effects from Green
River), Big Bull Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Big Reedy
Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Deerlick Creek (backwater
effects from Green River), Deerlick Creek Tributary 6 (backwater
effects from Green River), East Prong Indian Camp Creek (backwater
effects from Green River), Gary Creek (backwater effects from Green
River), Grassy Lick Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Green
River, Hickory Camp Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Hickory
Camp Creek Tributary 1 (backwater effects from Green River), Indian
Camp Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Lindsey Creek
(backwater effects from Green River), Little Bull Creek (backwater
effects from Green River), Little Reedy Creek (backwater effects from
Green River), Meffords Branch (backwater effects from Green River),
Meffords Branch Tributary 4 (backwater effects from Green River), Mud
River (backwater effects from Green River), Mud River Tributary 17
(backwater effects from Green River), Mud River Tributary 17.2
(backwater effects from Green River), Muddy Creek (backwater effects
from Green River), Muddy Creek Tributary 18 (backwater effects from
Green River), Muddy Creek Tributary 27 (backwater effects from Green
River), Muddy Creek Tributary 39.1 (backwater effects from Green
River), Panther Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Pipe Spring
Hollow (backwater effects from Green River), Pitman Creek (backwater
effects from Green River), Pitman Creek Tributary 3 (backwater effects
from Green River), Renfrow Creek (backwater effects from Green River),
Renfrow Creek Tributary 6 (backwater effects from Green River), Renfrow
Creek Tributary 7 (backwater effects from Green River), Renfrow Creek
Tributary 8 (backwater effects from Green River), Renfrow Creek
Tributary 9 (backwater effects from Green River), Rosy Creek (backwater
effects from Green River), Sandy Creek (backwater effects from Green
River), Sandy Creek Tributary 5 (backwater effects from Green River),
Tallow Branch (backwater effects from Green River), Welch Creek
(backwater effects from Green River), West Prong Indian Camp Creek
(backwater effects from Green River), and Wolfpen Hollow (backwater
effects from Green River).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before April 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1089, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements.
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. These proposed elevations 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 built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.

Corrections

    In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 29219, in the May 25, 2010,
issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Butler County,
Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas'' addressed the following flooding
sources: Barren River (backwater effects from Green River), Big Bull
Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Big Reedy Creek (backwater
effects from Green River), Deerlick Creek (backwater effects from Green
River), Deerlick Creek Tributary 6 (backwater effects from Green
River), East Prong Indian Camp Creek (backwater effects from Green
River), Gary Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Grassy Lick
Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Green River, Hickory Camp
Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Hickory Camp Creek
Tributary 1 (backwater effects from Green River), Indian Camp Creek
(backwater effects from Green River), Lindsey Creek (backwater effects
from Green River), Little Bull Creek (backwater effects from Green
River), Little Reedy Creek (backwater effects from Green River),
Meffords Branch (backwater effects from Green River), Meffords Branch
Tributary 4 (backwater effects from Green River), Mud River (backwater
effects from Green River), Mud River Tributary 17 (backwater effects
from Green River), Mud River Tributary 17.2 (backwater effects from
Green River), Muddy Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Muddy
Creek Tributary 18 (backwater effects from Green River), Muddy Creek
Tributary 27 (backwater effects from Green River), Muddy Creek
Tributary 39.1 (backwater effects from Green River), Panther Creek
(backwater effects from Green River), Pipe Spring Hollow (backwater
effects from Green River), Pitman Creek (backwater effects from Green
River), Pitman Creek Tributary 3 (backwater effects from Green River),
Renfrow Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Renfrow Creek
Tributary 6 (backwater effects from Green River), Renfrow Creek
Tributary 7 (backwater effects from Green River), Renfrow Creek
Tributary 8 (backwater effects from Green River), Renfrow Creek
Tributary 9 (backwater effects from Green River), Rosy Creek (backwater
effects from Green River), Sandy Creek (backwater effects from Green
River), Sandy Creek Tributary 5 (backwater effects from Green River),
Tallow Branch (backwater effects from Green River), Welch Creek
(backwater effects from Green River), West Prong Indian Camp Creek
(backwater effects from Green River), and Wolfpen Hollow (backwater
effects from Green River). That table contained inaccurate information
as to the communities affected for the flooding source Green River. In
this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate
information to address these prior errors. The information provided
below should be used in lieu of that previously published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet (NAVD)
                                                                  Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced       ground  [caret]        Communities affected
                                             elevation            Elevation in meters
                                                                         (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Butler County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barren River (backwater effects from  From the confluence             +423         +424  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                         with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to approximately 0.6
                                       mile upstream of the
                                       confluence with Little
                                       Muddy Creek.
Big Bull Creek (backwater effects     From the confluence             None         +428  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to approximately 0.5
                                       mile upstream of
                                       Johnson Cemetery Road.
Big Reedy Creek (backwater effects    From the confluence             None         +433  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to approximately 1,202
                                       feet downstream of the
                                       confluence with Big
                                       Reedy Creek Tributary
                                       4.
Deerlick Creek (backwater effects     From the confluence             None         +404  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with the Mud River to                              Butler County.
                                       approximately 935 feet
                                       upstream of Penrod
                                       Road.
Deerlick Creek Tributary 6            From the confluence             None         +404  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Green         with Deerlick Creek to                             Butler County.
 River).                               approximately 765 feet
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Deerlick Creek.
East Prong Indian Camp Creek          From the confluence             None         +415  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Green         with Indian Camp Creek                             Butler County.
 River).                               to approximately 1,179
                                       feet downstream of the
                                       confluence with East
                                       Prong Indian Camp
                                       Creek.
Gary Creek (backwater effects from    From the confluence             None         +429  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                         with Little Reedy                                  Butler County.
                                       Creek to approximately
                                       0.9 mile upstream of
                                       the confluence with
                                       Little Reedy Creek.
Grassy Lick Creek (backwater effects  From the confluence             None         +407  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with Muddy Creek to                                Butler County.
                                       approximately 1.1 mile
                                       downstream of Sandy
                                       Creek Road.

Green River.........................  At the confluence with          +403         +404  City of Morgantown,
                                       the Mud River.                                     City of Rochester,
                                                                                City of Woodbury,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Butler County.
                                      At approximately 1.7            +437         +438
                                       mile upstream of
                                       Reedyville Road.
Hickory Camp Creek (backwater         From the confluence             +403         +405  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with Panther Creek to                              Butler County.
                                       approximately 478 feet
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Hickory Camp Creek
                                       Tributary 1.
Hickory Camp Creek Tributary 1        From the confluence             None         +405  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Green         with Hickory Camp                                  Butler County.
 River).                               Creek to approximately
                                       676 feet upstream of
                                       the confluence with
                                       Hickory Camp Creek.
Indian Camp Creek (backwater effects  From the confluence             None         +415  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to approximately 1.1
                                       mile downstream of
                                       Dexterville-Gilstrap
                                       Road.
Lindsey Creek (backwater effects      From the confluence             None         +415  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with East Prong Indian                             Butler County.
                                       Camp Creek to
                                       approximately 0.4 mile
                                       downstream of
                                       Brownsville Road.
Little Bull Creek (backwater effects  From the confluence             None         +425  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to approximately 0.6
                                       mile upstream of the
                                       confluence with Tallow
                                       Branch.
Little Reedy Creek (backwater         From the confluence             None         +429  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to approximately 0.9
                                       mile upstream of the
                                       confluence with Rosy
                                       Creek.
Meffords Branch (backwater effects    From the confluence             None         +404  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with the Mud River to                              Butler County.
                                       approximately 1,425
                                       feet upstream of Perry
                                       Harper Road.
Meffords Branch Tributary 4           From the confluence             None         +404  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Green         with Meffords Branch                               Butler County.
 River).                               to approximately 0.6
                                       mile upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Meffords Branch.
Mud River (backwater effects from     From the confluence             +403         +404  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                         with the Green River                               Butler County, City of
                                       to approximately 2.2                               Rochester.
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Deerlick Creek.
Mud River Tributary 17 (backwater     From the confluence             +403         +404  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with the Green River                               Butler County, City of
                                       to approximately 314                               Rochester.
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Rochester Road.
Mud River Tributary 17.2 (backwater   From the confluence             None         +404  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with Mud River                                     Butler County.
                                       Tributary 17 to
                                       approximately 312 feet
                                       upstream of Rochester
                                       Road.
Muddy Creek (backwater effects from   From the confluence             None         +407  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                         with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to approximately 877
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       confluence with Muddy
                                       Creek Tributary 18.
Muddy Creek Tributary 18 (backwater   From the confluence             None         +407  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with Muddy Creek to                                Butler County.
                                       approximately 1,306
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       confluence with Muddy
                                       Creek.
Muddy Creek Tributary 27 (backwater   From the confluence             None         +407  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with Muddy Creek to                                Butler County.
                                       approximately 1,421
                                       feet downstream of
                                       Muddy Creek Tributary
                                       27.2.
Muddy Creek Tributary 39.1            From the confluence             None         +407  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Green         with Muddy Creek to                                Butler County.
 River).                               approximately 669 feet
                                       downstream of Muddy
                                       Creek Tributary 39.1.
Panther Creek (backwater effects      From the confluence             +403         +405  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to approximately 1,550
                                       feet downstream of G.
                                       Southerland Road.
Pipe Spring Hollow (backwater         From the confluence             +409         +408  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to just downstream of
                                       William H. Natcher
                                       Parkway.
Pitman Creek (backwater effects from  From the confluence             None         +419  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                         with Welch Creek to                                Butler County.
                                       approximately 554 feet
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with Pitman
                                       Creek Tributary 3.
Pitman Creek Tributary 3 (backwater   From the confluence             None         +419  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with Pitman Creek to                               Butler County.
                                       approximately 280 feet
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with Pitman
                                       Creek.
Renfrow Creek (backwater effects      From the confluence             None         +419  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to approximately 177
                                       feet downstream of
                                       Bowling Green Road.

Renfrow Creek Tributary 6 (backwater  From the confluence             None         +419  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with Renfrow Creek to                              Butler County.
                                       approximately 1,236
                                       feet downstream of
                                       Embry Way.
Renfrow Creek Tributary 7 (backwater  From the confluence             None         +419  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with Renfrow Creek to                              Butler County.
                                       just downstream of
                                       South Main Street.
Renfrow Creek Tributary 8 (backwater  From the confluence             None         +419  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with Renfrow Creek to                              Butler County.
                                       approximately 0.5 mile
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Renfrow Creek.
Renfrow Creek Tributary 9 (backwater  From the confluence             None         +419  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with Renfrow Creek to                              Butler County.
                                       just upstream of East
                                       Whalen Road.
Rosy Creek (backwater effects from    From the confluence             None         +429  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                         with Little Reedy                                  Butler County.
                                       Creek to approximately
                                       0.7 mile upstream of
                                       the confluence with
                                       Little Reedy Creek.
Sandy Creek (backwater effects from   From the confluence             None         +407  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                         with Muddy Creek to                                Butler County.
                                       approximately 494 feet
                                       downstream of Martin
                                       Road.
Sandy Creek Tributary 5 (backwater    From the confluence             None         +407  Unincorporated Areas of
 effects from Green River).            with Sandy Creek to                                Butler County.
                                       just upstream of
                                       Dunbar-Leetown Road.
Tallow Branch (backwater effects      From the confluence             None         +426  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with Little Bull Creek                             Butler County.
                                       to approximately 0.5
                                       mile upstream of the
                                       confluence with Little
                                       Bull Creek.
Welch Creek (backwater effects from   From the confluence             None         +419  Unincorporated Areas of
 Green River).                         with the Green River                               Butler County.
                                       to just downstream of
                                       Brownsville Road.
West Prong Indian Camp Creek          From the confluence             None         +414  Unincorporated Areas of
 (backwater effects from Green         with Indian Camp Creek                             Butler County.
 River).                               to approximately 3.7
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       confluence with Indian
                                       Camp Creek.
Wolfpen Hollow (backwater effects     From the confluence             None         +415  Unincorporated Areas of
 from Green River).                    with East Prong Indian                             Butler County.
                                       Camp Creek to
                                       approximately 1,205
                                       feet downstream of
                                       McKendree Chapel Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    Addresses
City of Woodbury
Maps are available for inspection at 1 Lock 4 Road, Woodbury, KY 42288.

City of Morgantown
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 117 North Main Street, Morgantown, KY 42261.

City of Rochester
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 672 Russellville Street, Rochester, KY 42273.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Butler County
Maps are available for inspection at the County Courthouse, 110 North Main Street, Morgantown, KY 42261.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

James A. Walke,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-31409 Filed 12-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: May 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 29494]
[DOCID:fr29my07-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. EL07-50-000]

Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE) Complainant v.
California Public Utilities Commission Southern California Edison
Company, Blythe Energy, LLC Respondents; Amended Complaint Notice

May 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on May 1, 2007, Californians for Renewable Energy,
Inc. (CARE) tendered for filing the first amendment to its complaint
against the California Public Utilities Commission, Southern California
Edison Company and Blythe Energy, LLC. CARE states that it filed a
formal complaint against the respondents on February 28, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-10178 Filed 5-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10947-10948]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03675]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1121-000]

Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Existing Licensee's
Notice of Intent To Not File a New License Application, and Soliciting
Notices of Intent To File a License Application and Pre-Application
Documents

    At least five years, but no more than five and one-half years,
before the expiration of a license for a major water power project, the
licensee must file with the Commission a letter that contains an
unequivocal statement of the licensee's intent to file or not to file
an application for a new license.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 16.6(c) (2020).

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

    If such a licensee informs the Commission that it does not intend
to file an application for a new license, nonpower license, or
exemption for the project, the licensee may not file an application for
a new license, nonpower license, or exemption for the project, either
individually or in conjunction with an entity or entities that are not
currently licensees of the project.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 16.24 (a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 23, 2020, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E), the
existing licensee for the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project No. 1121,
filed notice of its intent to not file an application for a new
license. Therefore, pursuant to section 16.24(a)(1) of the Commission's
regulations, PG&E may not file an application for a new license for the
project, either individually or in conjunction with an entity or
entities that are not currently licensees of the project.
    The 36.1-megawatt (MW) Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project is
located on the North and South Forks of Battle Creek, a tributary to
the Sacramento River, in Shasta and Tehama Counties, California. The
project occupies 93 acres of federal land managed by the U.S. Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The existing license for the
project expires on July 31, 2026.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because PG&E filed the notice of intent to not file an
application for a new license more than five and one-half years
before the expiration of the license, we waive the applicable
requirement in 18 CFR 16.6(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The principal project works consist of: (1) Two small upstream
storage reservoirs; (2) three forebays; (3) twenty canals and pipelines
and associated diversion dams; (4) penstocks leading to five
powerhouses; (5) five 60-kV transmission lines with a total length of
50.3 miles; and (6) five substations.
    Any party interested in filing a license application (i.e.,
potential applicant) for the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project No.
1121 must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) \4\ and pre- application
document (PAD).\5\ Additionally, while the integrated licensing process
(ILP) is the default process for preparing an application for a
subsequent license, a potential applicant may request to use
alternative licensing procedures when it files its NOI.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 5.5.
    \5\ 18 CFR 5.6.
    \6\ 18 CFR 5.3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deadline for potential applicants, other than the existing
licensee, to file NOIs, PADs, and requests to use an alternative
licensing process is 120 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Applications for a new license from potential applicants, other
than the existing licensee, must be filed with the Commission at least
24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license.\7\ Because
the existing license expires on July 31, 2026, applications for license
for this project must be filed by July 31, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 18 CFR 16.9(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Rebecca Kipp
(202) 502- 8846 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 16, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-03675 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


APPENDIX B: GLOSSARY

Glossary

Benchmark       A measure or criterion against which a model result is evaluated.  An example of a benchmark (used in the deterministic attainment test) is lack of any hourly ozone predictions greater than 124 ppb.  A test consists of one or more benchmarks.

Deterministic Approach       A procedure for assessing whether a model result implies that a proposed strategy is likely to result in attainment of the NAAQS.  The approach consists of two parts: a "deterministic test" and a "weight of evidence determination".  Both of these latter terms are described below.

Deterministic Test       A test which incorporates a single criterion to determine whether a proposed control strategy demonstrates attainment: there must be no predicted ozone values > 124 ppb.  In contrast to the "statistical test" (described below), it does not consider likelihood that meteorological conditions more severe than those modeled will occur.

Episode Days       An "episode" is a period of interest which is chosen for modeling to support State implementation plans to meet the air quality standard for ozone.  Generally, an "episode" is a period of one or more days in which ozone concentrations exceeding the level specified in the ozone air quality standard  (i.e., 0.12 ppm) have been monitored.  Each day in such a period is referred to as an "episode day".  The first day of a modeled episode is usually discounted, because model predictions may be too dependent on poorly known data.  Model results obtained for the remaining days are compared to the national air quality standard using the attainment demonstration approaches described in this guidance.  For this reason, these days are referred to as "primary episode days".

Exceedance       A term, coined by the EPA, meaning a model prediction (or observation) which is greater than the level specified in a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  Thus, for ozone, an exceedance is any prediction greater than 0.12 ppm.  Consistent with conventional rounding procedures and the practice long followed with monitored data, we consider concentrations of 115-124 ppb to be equivalent to 0.12 ppm.          Meteorological Ozone Forming Potential       A value for a daily maximum ozone concentration which is estimated using a regression model derived to describe correspondence between observed daily maximum ozone and several meteorological variables over a limited period (say 10 years).  Because the regression model's independent variables contain only meteorological terms, it is possible to apply the regression equation over a many year period, prior to the time in which ozone measurements are available.  All that is required is for the appropriate meteorological measurements to have been made.  Thus, it is possible to rank "meteorological ozone forming potential" using a very long period of record (i.e., a large data base).  This allows us to draw inferences about the number of times per year we would expect a modeled day's calculated "meteorological ozone forming potential" to be exceeded.  We use this information to relate an ozone concentration modeled with a photochemical grid model to the "expected exceedance" form of the ozone NAAQS.

Meteorological Regime       A meteorological regime describes a set of meteorological conditions which are shared in common by a subset of days being considered for modeling.  In our guidance, we distinguish among meteorological regimes according to broad, prevailing wind patterns (i.e., windfields).  Orientation of sources of VOC and Nox with respect to one another and with respect to receptor sites (e.g., monitor sites) is determined by the wind pattern.  We believe the relationship between control strategies and predicted ozone is affected by the way in which sources of precursors are oriented toward one another.  To ensure that a proposed strategy is generally effective, we recommend that episodes selected from several meteorological regimes be modeled.

Mid-course Review       A "mid-course review" is a reassessment of modeling analyses and more recent monitored data to reaffirm that a prescribed control strategy is appropriate for attaining the ambient air quality standard for ozone by statutory dates.  We require a mid-course review as a means for addressing uncertainty inherent in making projections in emissions and air quality many years into the future.

NAAQS       Abbreviation for "national ambient air quality standard".  The NAAQS for ozone is that the daily maximum hourly concentration should not be expected to exceed 0.12 ppm more than 1.0 times per year at any monitoring site.

Observational Models

      An "observational model" is one which relies on monitored air quality, and in some cases, meteorological data, to draw inferences about the types of control strategies which are likely to be effective in reducing ambient ozone.  They typically examine relative amounts of monitored volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides as well as species of pollutants which may be indicative of emissions of a particular type of source of ozone precursors.  They are called "observational" models, because their fundamental inputs are observed air quality data.

"Severe" Episode Day       We define a "severe" episode day as one whose meteorological ozone forming potential is not expected occur as frequently as twice per year.  That is, the "expected exceedance frequency" (ExEx) is less than 2.0 per year. In the "statistical attainment test", described below, we relate a modeled episode day's expected exceedance frequency to the NAAQS for ozone, which allows 1.0 expected exceedance per year of a daily maximum ozone concentration of  0.12 ppm at every location.

Statistical Approach       A procedure for assessing whether a proposed control strategy is likely to result in attainment of the ozone NAAQS.  The approach has two components: a "statistical test" (described below) and a "weight of evidence determination", also described below.

Statistical Test       A test which incorporates three criteria to determine whether a proposed strategy demonstrates attainment of the ozone NAAQS.  The test includes (1)a limit on the number of days having modeled exceedances at each location; (2) a limit on the size of a modeled exceedance, and (3) in cases where a model underpredicts observed ozone, a requirement that a minimum level of improvement in predicted ozone be exceeded.  The test is "statistical", because it considers the expected frequency with which the severity of a modeled episode day is exceeded.

Subregion       In this guidance, the term "subregion" refers to contiguous geographical areas approximately 15 km x 15 km.  In the statistical test, we allow one or more exceedances of the ozone NAAQS to occur in each subregion on as many as 3 "severe episode days".

UAM

      An abbreviation for the "Urban Airshed Model".  The UAM is a 3-dimensional Eulerian photochemical grid model.  As of June 1996, version IV (i.e., UAM-IV) of the UAM is recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use in attainment demonstrations needed to support State implementation plans to meet the ozone NAAQS.

Violation       A "violation" of the ozone NAAQS occurs when the expected frequency of a modeled or monitored exceedance is greater than 1.0 per year at any location.  Thus, an exceedance at any location is not a violation unless there is reason to believe it will occur more frequently than once per year.  The distinction between "violation" and "exceedance" is what permits a modeled attainment test to allow modeled exceedances.

Weight of Evidence Determination       A weight of evidence determination is the second component of the Deterministic Approach and the Statistical Approach.  It entails use of results from a statistical or deterministic test, monitored data, additional modeled results and other data to make a judgment, consistent with all the available evidence,  whether a proposed control strategy will attain the NAAQS by the statutory date.  It is included as a part of an attainment demonstration in recognition of uncertainty inherent in the application of photochemical grid models for this purpose.  Use of corroborative data is intended to reduce this uncertainty.  This Guidance identifies different kinds of analyses that should be considered in a weight of evidence determination, as well as factors which affect how heavily each analysis should be weighed and outcomes which are consistent with allowing small deviations from the benchmarks in the deterministic or statistical attainment tests.                                  APPENDIX C: RELATED ISSUES                                                                                I. General Questions About The Attainment Demonstration Process And The Relationship Of The Attainment Test To This Process

1. Given that we typically only model 3 episodes while monitors measure ozone every day, why do we believe that the current modeled attainment test may be conservative?

The current modeled attainment test may be conservative for several reasons.  First, our guidance focuses modeling on days observing the most severe ozone concentrations.  Since these are the conditions which have already led to highest observed ozone, it is assumed that reducing ozone to the level of the NAAQS under these circumstances should also lead to levels below 120 ppb on other days.  In short, the episode selection process does not choose a random sample of days to model.  Rather, it is directed toward choosing those days for which it is anticipated attaining the NAAQS will be most difficult.  The modeled attainment test should be viewed in this context.

The monitored attainment test is acknowledged as the definitive means for determining whether an area is attaining the ozone NAAQS.  The modeled attainment test differs from the monitored attainment test in several important ways.  First, the modeled test allows no exceedances of 120 ppb in any surface grid cell.  In contrast to a limited number of monitoring sites, there are over a thousand of these cells in a typical application.  Next, the monitored test allows up to three exceedances of 124 ppb (not 120 ppb) at each monitoring site during a three year period.  Putting this another way, if there were a network of 15 monitors, each having complete sampling and observing 3 exceedances, an area could have 45 exceedances over 3 years and still meet the NAAQS.  In contrast, the modeled test considers many more locations, yet permits no exceedances despite preselecting meteorological episodes observed to be most conducive to high monitored ozone.

2. How does transport (i.e., high boundary conditions) affect the attainment test?

Assumed boundary conditions do not affect the attainment test per se.  Rather, the degree of transport and how it changes between the base period and the statutory attainment date affect the model results.  As shown in Figure S.1 (executive summary), the model results are then compared to the benchmark(s) in the statistical or deterministic test for demonstrating attainment.  The benchmarks themselves are unaffected by the boundary conditions used as input to the model.  Although it is possible to confine application of the attainment test to only a portion

of the modeling domain, this is a policy decision outside the scope of this guidance.

If model results come close to meeting the test's benchmark(s), some of the analyses included in the description of a weight of evidence determination (Section 5.3) may indirectly consider the role of transport in deciding whether the outcome of a test is close enough to a benchmark to provide sufficient confidence that attainment is demonstrated.  For example, use of observational models and cost/benefit analysis in concert could determine that locally predicted ozone is not likely to be responsive to additional controls proposed on a local source or group of local sources.  One reason for this may well be presence of a major transport component from sources outside the local jurisdiction.  If there are ongoing efforts to develop a regional strategy (e.g., such as in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG)),  evidence of this nature could be used as a factor in deciding that model results which nearly meet applicable benchmarks are sufficient to demonstrate attainment.

It is important to recall that a technically acceptable attainment demonstration for an area with a statutory date of 2005 or beyond should have provisions for at least one mid-course review.  If there does not appear to be a viable regional strategy for reducing transport and if there is little apparent progress toward meeting the benchmarks or NAAQS, a more stringent strategy could be invoked at that time.

3. Given the large uncertainty associated with projections over many years, would a demonstration which identifies measures to meet air quality goals in intermediate years (rather than at the statutory date), together with a commitment to conduct one or more mid-course reviews to identify subsequent necessary measures constitute an acceptable demonstration?

We understand the argument that uncertainty associated with model predictions increases the further one projects into the future.  However, the answer to this question lies outside the scope of this guidance.  The question is one that must be resolved by a policy decision which factors in legal constraints as well as technical considerations.

II.  Questions About The Statistical Test And Episode Ranking Schemes

4. Using a long-term period like 41 years for ranking could lead to more frequent exceedances over limited periods due to long term periodicities in meteorological conditions.  Wouldn't it be better to consider only the last 10-15 years, where meteorological conditions appear to be more conducive to high ozone in many parts of the country?

The answer to this question depends on how one should interpret the meaning of the NAAQS for ozone.  The NAAQS is met if the expected number of times the daily maximum hourly ozone concentration exceeds 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1.0 per year.  Since the NAAQS makes no mention of specific time frames for its application, the longer the period used to rank individual days, the more reliable the distribution of rankings should be.

The benchmarks in the statistical test are unaffected by the period chosen for ranking days.  This follows because meeting the first two benchmarks is determined by the expected exceedance frequency of modeled episode days.  However, the ranked value corresponding to an expected exceedance frequency varies depending on the number of years the ranking scheme is based upon.  The impact of choosing a shorter period can be illustrated using Table 4.2.  Suppose we use a ranking scheme based on 10-years data (rather than 41).  The ranked values corresponding with ExEx rates of 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 exceedances per year are "6", "11" and "21" respectively.  This contrasts with ranks of "21", "42" and "82" appropriate for a 41-year sample.

The limit on predicted daily maximum ozone for days with ExEx between 0.5 and 2.0 times/year would continue to be 130 ppb.  Looking at the column labeled "10" in Table 4.2, we see that the limit on the top ranked day is more restrictive than is the case for a 41-year period of record.  Thus, there is a balance which occurs.  Longer periods consider many more days.  Those days which are highest ranked have higher permitted daily maxima.  However, there is a greater likelihood that the distribution used to compute the rankings is a comprehensive one, and the probability that the top ranked day is exceeded is much smaller.

5. Variability in observed daily maxima depends on variability in emissions as well as in meteorology.  Shouldn't a ranking procedure include emissions variability as a determining factor?

We agree that day to day variations in highest observed daily maximum ozone concentrations are likely to be affected by daily changes in emissions.  The guidance allows flexibility in the choice of variables for use in statistical models to explain observed variation in daily maximum ozone so long as the criteria specified in Section 4.3.4 are met.

In choosing a statistical model to serve as a basis for ranking episode days, one should keep in mind the primary purpose for doing so.  This is to provide a means of characterizing the shape of the distribution of highest daily maxima after a control strategy is implemented.  This characterization allows us to judge whether an exceedance, modeled after controls are simulated is, nevertheless, consistent with meeting the NAAQS.  Any control strategy is likely to change emissions in a major, systematic way.  This could mean that the rankings assigned to days in the base case may no longer be valid.    A second problem with including day to day variation in emissions in a ranking scheme is that it is doubtful that these are known nearly so well as the daily fluctuations in key meteorological variables.  If this information were known so precisely, should it not be included as input to the photochemical model?  Inclusion of a poorly known independent variable in a regression equation would seem to open the door to speculative assumptions about how the variable differs from day to day.

In short, we are open to suggestions that are plausible and appear to work well in explaining variations in observed daily maximum ozone concentrations.  However a proposed ranking procedure, which includes emissions as an independent variable in the underlying regression equation, would need some accompanying explanation concerning why our concerns about this are not well founded.

6. Why not simply use air quality observations directly to characterize severity of episode days?

As noted in the response to the preceding question, we are amenable to use of different models for characterizing variation in daily maxima.  Clearly, this one is excellent in characterizing severity during the base case, but will it be in the future?  The advantage use of meteorological variables has over air quality and emissions variables is that there is no reason to believe that they will change in any systematic way in the foreseeable future.  Further, if emissions are reduced in future years, one would expect the distribution of future air quality concentrations to become increasingly dependent on meteorological fluctuations.

The problem of reconciling historical data with more current observations poses a second disadvantage with directly using air quality observations to rank days.  For example, looking at air quality observations alone, might convince one that a 1983 episode was more conducive to high ozone than one in 1995.  This might not actually be the case, since observations in 1995 may be reduced as the result of control efforts over the past 12 years.

A third, though minor, disadvantage to directly using air quality observations for ranking purposes in the Statistical Test is that the period of record  would likely be limited to at most 15 years.  Consequences of this are discussed in the response to question 4.

7. What does one do if there is more than one MSA with rankings for the meteorological ozone forming potential in a modeling domain and these rankings differ?  Does a single ranking apply for an entire domain?

Choice of which set of rankings to use depends on the location of the highest and most pervasive exceedances modeled on each day as well as on the wind field.  It is conceivable that rankings from different MSA's may be used for different episode days.  In general, for each modeled day, one should choose the ranking from the MSA where the highest and most numerous exceedances are predicted.  Consideration may also be given to the location of observed exceedances.  If there is a tossup among two or more MSA's using the preceding criteria, but there is a major difference in the amount of emissions from the different MSA's, use the ranking for the MSA with the greatest emissions.  If this last criterion is also inapplicable, choose the MSA with the highest ranking for the day in question.  We do not recommend using different rankings for different parts of the typical size domain.  We feel this would make the test unduly complicated.  However, case by case exceptions could be considered, particularly for large regional scale domains on days where the windfield suggests little interaction among the MSA's.

It may also happen that the model's worst or most numerous predicted exceedances occur in a location which we have not considered with our default ranking procedure.  If ozone and meteorological observations are available nearby, an additional set of rankings may be developed for this area.  The Cox/Chu approach need not be used for this purpose if the criteria identified in Section 4.3.4 are met by an alternative ranking approach.

8. What is the basis for allowing a predicted daily maximum of 130 ppb if a day's estimated severity is expected to be exceeded more than once per year?

The ranking procedure carries with it attendant uncertainties.  Rankings are assigned using a statistical model which, typically, explains about 70% of the observed day to day variation in the highest daily maximum ozone.  This means that some of the variation is unexplained (uncertain).  In addition, as we note in Section 4.3.2, rankings exhibit some sensitivity to the regression model chosen to explain variations in observed highest daily maxima.  The sensitivity increases as we move away from the most extreme episode days.  We have used the preceding information to conclude that ExEx estimates between 0.5 and 2.0 are essentially equivalent to 1.0 ExEx/year in the statistical attainment test.  Our guidance permits exceedances in each subregion on some (but not all) days with ExEx values in this range.  An exceedance is a value greater than 124 ppb.  We chose 130 ppb (the value corresponding to 0.5 ExEx/year), since the uncertainty in the analysis suggests all the exceedance rates in the 0.5-2.0 range are equivalent.  Some might argue that this is not protective of the NAAQS.  Our rejoinder is that it is easier to add controls as a result of a mid-course review (in which the uncertainty is diminished) than it is to compensate sources and the public for requiring unnecessary measures.

9. Why doesn't the default ranking scheme consider regional transport?  How could a measure of regional transport be considered in locations where this is believed to be important?  How could other phenomena such as flow reversal be considered?

The Cox/Chu equations used in the default procedure for ranking severity of days includes terms for morning and afternoon wind speed and direction.  However, there is no term(s) reflecting widespread occurrence of meteorological conditions which are favorable for high ozone.  Considering meteorological ozone forming potential calculated within a day or two in nearby MSA's might be a way to consider regional transport over a long period of record.  It was not feasible for us to do this in deriving the default procedure, because it would have meant going through several iterations for each of the 32 areas we considered.

We have ranked data sets for a long period of record for each of the 32 areas mentioned above.  Each ranking has an associated meteorological ozone forming potential.  This information could be made available to a State which requests it so that it might be examined for MSA's located within several hundred miles of an MSA which is the focus of a modeling analysis.  Meteorological ozone forming potential or ranked values calculated within a day or two at these nearby MSA's could be examined to see whether they are useful in explaining day to day variation in the observed highest daily maximum ozone concentration within the MSA which is the focus of the SIP attainment demonstration.  As described in Section 4.3.4, we are open to the use of other procedures for ranking severity of days, so long as the criteria mentioned in that Section are met.

Other reviewers have hypothesized that flow reversal resulting in transport of a city's own plume back over the city is a condition which is likely to coincide with high observed ozone.  If this is believed to be a major problem, not covered adequately by the morning and afternoon wind velocity terms in the default procedure, terms like the "change in afternoon vs. morning wind direction" might be explored to see whether the skill of the regression equation in explaining variation in daily maximum ozone is improved.  Section 4.3.4 provides flexibility to tailor a ranking scheme for a particular location, so long as reasonable criteria are met.

10. Will rankings be based solely on 1953-1993 data?  How can episodes occurring after 1993 be considered?

We can add new years to the data base periodically.  This should enable consideration of episodes from later years (with a short time lag) using the default approach.  As can be seen from Table 4.2, increasing the period of record beyond 41-years affects the ExEx values corresponding to ranked values in minor ways.  Similarly, the limit in the magnitude of an allowed exceedance is pretty insensitive to minor increases in the period of record used to rank days.  For previously selected episodes, we would allow a State to retain rankings based on the 41-year period of record if the modeling was underway and if the State chose to retain the ranking.

III.  Questions Relating to Uncertainty and Weight of Evidence Determinations

11. Doesn't a weight of evidence determination establish a new, defacto benchmark which relaxes the NAAQS?

The NAAQS is unaffected by the modeled attainment test.  States are obligated to meet the NAAQS by the statutory dates.  The weight of evidence determination is introduced so that other information, in addition to the photochemical grid model results, can be used to help make the best judgment we can about whether a proposed strategy is likely to be successful in meeting the NAAQS within required timeframes.

Unless benchmarks in the deterministic and statistical tests are nearly met, the weight of evidence provided from other analyses will need to be very compelling to overcome that resulting from the photochemical grid model. If the photochemical grid model has been applied in accordance with published guidance, we believe its  predictions should be given considerable weight.  Nevertheless, there is uncertainty associated with the predictions.  This is why use of corroborative information is desirable.

Use of corroborative information is not intended to result in  defacto, relaxed benchmarks.  If results of corroborative analyses are also consistent with the conclusion that a strategy will be insufficient to meet the NAAQS by the statutory date, attainment would not be demonstrated.

12. Uncertainty is a two-edged sword.  The two recommended modeled approaches for demonstrating attainment appear to be biased toward preventing unnecessary control measures.  What protections exist against a modeling analysis underestimating needed control measures?

As noted in the response to question 1, we believe the current test is more conservative than what the NAAQS requires.  This conservatism was introduced to ensure the NAAQS would be met, given uncertainty attendant in the modeled estimates.  In the two approaches we are now recommending for modeled attainment demonstrations, we attempt to consider factors leading to uncertainty more explicitly in the approaches or we introduce requirements intended to reduce uncertainty.  For example, the statistical test incorporates consideration of episode severity in its benchmarks.  The deterministic test (which is really very similar to the existing test), may be supplemented with corroborative analyses in order to justify not meeting its benchmark.  The intent of the corroborative analyses is to reduce the uncertainty about whether a strategy will be sufficient to attain the NAAQS.  Reducing the uncertainty (i.e., the corroborative analyses support adequacy of the strategy) justifies relaxing the requirement to meet the benchmark.  We believe the requirement for an attainment demonstration to include provision for one or more mid-course reviews offers the most important protection against prescribing insufficient controls.  This brings to bear stronger corroborative evidence, as well as modeling with smaller uncertainty (due to shorter projection periods) in assessing whether an existing strategy is adequate to attain the NAAQS.

13. Are the types of analyses which can be considered in a weight of evidence determination limited to those described in Section 5.3?

No.  Other analyses may also be considered.  We recommend that they be identified and that the rationale for their use be described to the appropriate U.S.EPA Regional Office before resources are expended.

	TECHNICAL REPORT DATA 	(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)

1. REPORT NO.    EPA-454/B-95-007

2.

3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

   Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of       the Ozone NAAQS

5. REPORT DATE               June 1996

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7. AUTHOR(S)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency    Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards    Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.

11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT

     This document provides guidance on use of results from photochemical grid models to test whether a proposed control strategy is likely to be sufficient to demonstrate attainment of the one expected exceedance form of the ozone NAAQS.  The guidance described herein should be used in concert with Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model (EPA-450/4-91-013, July 1991) to apply grid models to determine attainment of the ozone NAAQS.  This guidance describes two acceptable approaches for demonstrating attainment:  a statistical approach and a deterministic approach.  It also describes how corroborative evidence may be used with each approach in a weight of evidence analysis to determine whether attainment of the NAAQS is likely.  Because of attendant uncertainties in the modeling process, the guidance requires use of subsequent mid-course reviews to support any needed refinements to an attainment strategy.

17.	KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS

a.	DESCRIPTORS

b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS

c. COSATI Field/ Group

    Air Pollution     Atmospheric Dispersion Models     Statistical Models

photochemical grid models ozone attainment tests meteorological conditions

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

    Release Unlimited

19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)     Unclassified

21. NO. OF PAGES       77

20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)     Unclassified

22. PRICE

  EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)   PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25356-25359]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09139]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0347; Product Identifier 2020-NM-042-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-600R series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of damaged main deck cargo
crossbeams on the right-hand side, between certain frame locations.
This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections of the
affected main deck cargo crossbeams for any damage, and depending on
findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective actions, as specified
in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be
incorporated by reference. This proposed AD would also provide optional
terminating actions for the repetitive detailed inspections. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 15,
2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 89990 1000; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0347.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0347; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large
Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-0347;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-042-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0050, dated March 9, 2020;
corrected March 11, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0050'') (also referred to as
the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''),
to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-
600R series airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report of damaged main deck
cargo crossbeams on the right-hand side, between certain frame
locations. The FAA is proposing this AD to address damaged main deck
cargo crossbeams, which could adversely affect the structural integrity
of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0050 describes procedures for repetitive detailed
inspections of the affected main deck cargo crossbeams from frame (FR)
48 to FR54 for any damage (including bent, curved, and cracked
crossbeams); corrective actions; and terminating actions. Corrective
actions include detailed inspections of the right-hand and left-hand
crossbeams and lugs for damage (including buckling and cracking) and
correct diameter of the lug/crossbeam holes; repair; and replacement of
damaged crossbeams. Optional terminating actions include replacement of
crossbeams with reinforced machined crossbeams.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0050 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD. This proposed AD also would require sending
the inspection results to Airbus SAS.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0050
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0050 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2020-0050 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-
0050 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0347 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 52 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                           Labor cost                               Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510..............................              $0            $510         $26,520
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA
estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S.
operators to be $4,420, or $85 per product.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition repairs that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Repairs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
               Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 work-hours x $85 per hour = $510......         $10,000         $10,510
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the FAA
to provide cost estimates for the on-condition inspections and
replacements specified in this proposed AD.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do the optional
terminating actions specified in this proposed AD.

            Estimated Costs for Optional Terminating Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
               Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 work-hours x $85 per hour = $1,530...         $10,000         $11,530
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to 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 control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has
been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal
Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-
1524.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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 airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2020-0347; Product Identifier 2020-NM-
042-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by June 15, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European
Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0050, dated March 9,
2020; corrected March 11, 2020 (``EASA AD 2020-0050'').

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of damaged main deck cargo
crossbeams on the right-hand side, between certain frame locations.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address damaged main deck cargo
crossbeams, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2020-0050.

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0050

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0050 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0050 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2020-0050 specifies to report
inspection results to Airbus within a certain compliance time. For
this AD, report inspection results at the applicable time specified
in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by

the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): For any service information
referenced in EASA AD 2020-0050 that contains RC procedures and
tests: Except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, RC
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.
    (4) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: 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 1
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
All responses to this collection of information are mandatory as
required by this AD; the nature and extent of confidentiality to be
provided, if any. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to Information Collection
Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0050, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 89990
6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0347.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on April 23, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-09139 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 56609]
[DOCID:fr02no09-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-75-000]

Cassia Gulch Wind Park, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

October 26, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Cassia Gulch Wind Park, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file 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 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is November 16, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list.
    They are also available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26246 Filed 10-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P